Master_sheet

Document Sample
Master_sheet Powered By Docstoc
					ID        ReviewerInitials   BinderNumber   PageNumber         Basemap
                                                         LineNumber Other CommentType          Topic Details
      6   CES                1              II                              Required                     Approval by must
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contentsbe specific to the RD's approval.
      7   CES                1              II                              Suggested                    Suggest (plan author) be noted with Matt's signature block.
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents
      8   CES                1              IV                              Suggested                    Suggest wording
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents from the NDPEG Q&A be used for the details of the 260ha exception rationale. It avoids an issue of trying to describe a 'planned clearcut' in this listing.
      9   CES                1              V                               Editorial                    suggest inserting
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents 'species' after the word 'bird' at the end of the first sentence in the road construction reporting(1.2).
     10   CES                1              10                              Required                     Map 4.6 Contents
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and should be listed in the listing of values maps.
     11   CES                1              14           11                 Editorial                    Sentence
                                                                                               2.1 Introduction seems to be missing a word. Perhaps 'prescriptions' after AOC?
     12   CES                1              25           36                 Suggested                    Section on WC4
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description seems to be missing a closure statement on management implications associated with this area, related to the EMA strategy.
     13   CES                1              30           4                  Suggested                    Suggest adding
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description the other silvicultural guides (given PR/PW/Ce management)
     14   CES                1              30           21                 Suggested                    Do Description
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forestyou have an existing bar chart or table in the FMP already showing %ES representation that could be referenced in this discussion? Some plans already have this as part of the SGR's or the FU development information.
     15   CES                1              30           34-39              Suggested                    Good introductory
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description questions, however the text that follows only touches on a few. Suggest only asking questions that are answered. Related to this, if other information exists it should be discussed in this section (size, pattern, productivity, habitat socio-economic) to help understand historic trend/variation. This discussion is a little weak.
     16   CES                1              44           27                 Editorial                    The word 'unit' is
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description missing after 'forest'.
     17   CES                1              45           28-31              Suggested                    Suggest that this
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description may not be so given the new FMPM requirements around objectives indicators and targets. Also, these tables will not exist.
     18   CES                1              48           29                 Required                     Discussion on FMP-4a missing? If this is covered elsewhere a reference should be noted in this section (current forest condition).
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description
     19   CES                1              61           8                  Editorial                    Is this second 10
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description year period not 1991-2001?
     20   CES                1              62           23                 Required                     Note terminology
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description needs to change (RVTE), and note that you have specific species that need to be covered as they occur on the forest and could be impacted by OPS. Regional Species at Risk Biologist (Jenn/Hilary) will get this information to District Biologist to assist in wording.
     21   CES                1              62           32                 Suggested                    Suggest caution
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description on outlining amendment requirements, as the new manual provides for operations to proceed without an amendment in a number of situations.
     22   CES                1              62           35                 Suggested                    Some discussion
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description regarding the extent of the White Pelicans population should be covered off in this section. You have it noted in the introduction (Pg 11, ln 34)
     23   CES                1              69           40-43              Required                     Required information is missing
                                                                                               2.2.3 Social and Economic Description for the listed small mills. Also, what about the volume utilized, product and agreement for all mills?
     24   CES                1              70           34                 Required                     Some details should be provided
                                                                                               2.2.3 Social and Economic Description regarding these resorts. See FMPM as to expectations. Especially important is the economic importance associated with this very significant industry on the forests
     25   CES                1              71           29-43              Required                     Some details should be provided
                                                                                               2.2.3 Social and Economic Description regarding these non-commercial uses. See FMPM as to expectations. Try to reference some factual user-day expenditure type information, if possible.
     26   CES                1              75           32-41              Required                     Section needs to be Context
                                                                                               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning updated to tie in the newest strategic document (Our Sustainable Future 2005). SEV BNs need to use Beyond 2000 and will need to include the updated informal direction that recognizes Our Sustainable Future (Cathy is leading this)
     27   CES                1              84           33                 Editorial                    The SupDoc should Context
                                                                                               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning only contain a summary of how the recommendations have been addressed, not the audit itself. Please replace 'a copy of the audit ...' with 'A summary of how the audit recommendations have been addressed in the plan ...'
     28   CES                1              85           13-16              Editorial                    Sentence Planning Context
                                                                                               2.3.2 Forest Mgmtis incomplete
     29   CES                1              85           28                 Suggested                    Suggest that a time Context
                                                                                               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning line is missing in this action statement. Suggest adding '... for use in the development of the next FMP.' Also, note that since this sort of information (survey) is related to FTG activities that it be noted in the Monitoring section of the FMP.
     30   CES                1              88           2-44               Suggested                    This text is dated and a number
                                                                                               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning Context of references are to 'will be' need to be adjusted to reflect current status, since this section deals with how the issues have been addressed. Also it is quite unclear how exactly WC 4 has been addressed in this FMP (ln 22-40), and suggest you need a closure paragraph as to how the EMA strategy was used/addressed.
     31   CES                1              98           32                 Comment                      This strategy is interesting given the extremely low past utilization on the forest - and I will be looking to see how this strategy is delivered in the plan.
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives
     32   CES                1              105          13                 Suggested                    Listing/discussion should
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives also note relationship between FU and WG's. Suggest these be listed.
     33   CES                1              107          21                 Required                     Other guides used to develop prescriptions need to be noted (PR, PW, CE)
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives
     34   CES                1              108          6                  Required                     Table is not consistent
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives with line 27 regarding seeding on ES 16,19,21, or the exceptions page. Also see CDC comments 222 & 219
     35   CES                1              109          29-38              Required                     Text is not Alternatives
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management consistent with text on page 114 ln 39-41 where 1500 well spaced stems per hectare has been set as the minimum acceptable standard for basic stocking. SGR's should state this.
     36   CES                1                                              Required                     Text on page 109 ln 29-38
                                                                                               SGR - Silvicultural Ground Rules is not consistent with text on page 114 ln 39-41 where 1500 well spaced stems per hectare has been set as the minimum acceptable standard for basic stocking. SGR's should state this.
     37   CES                1              111          27                 Required                     SGR 1.01 Alternatives
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management needs to be removed from the SGR's as you have this covered on SGR footnote 3 and page 113, whereby an appropriate SGR will be selected based on the FU/site type encountered.
     38   CES                1                                              Required                     SGR 1.01 Ground be removed from the SGR's as you have this covered on SGR footnote 3 and page 113, whereby an appropriate SGR will be selected based on the FU/site type encountered.
                                                                                               SGR - Silviculturalneeds to Rules
     39   CES                1              111          33                 Editorial                    Can't find Alternatives
                                                                                               2.3.3 Managementthis SGR in FMP-10?
     40   CES                1              125          14-18              Suggested                    Suggest a couple of lines be added to identify that, for the productive landbase (FMP-12/13), the SPU actually doubles and the UCB is stable. This could help the reader downplay the significance of these results, as they currently stand out.
                                                                                               2.3.4 Analysis of MAs
     41   CES                1              135          12-13              Editorial                    duplicate sentence to remove
                                                                                               2.3.4 Analysis of MAs
     42   CES                1              145          3                  Editorial                    'Housing values
                                                                                               2.3.4 Analysis of MAs increased from the present .... to ...'
     43   CES                1              153          35                 Suggested                    Suggest MA
                                                                                               2.3.5 Selection of you need a header for this final conclusion as to the SMA (insert at line 35), so that it is not lost in the earlier paragraph which concluded the comparison to the 2001 FMP.
     44   CES                1              154          20-41              Suggested                    With
                                                                                               2.3.6 AHA these two paragraphs showing the comparison of the AHA and AHV I was left wondering how the Area could decline by 15% while the volume was similar. I do not recall reading anything yet in the plan to suggest that the yield curves were increased (analysis package actually states they were similar to last plan). Suggest that this be explained/discussed or the reader provided a reference where this discussion occurs.
     45   CES                1              158          32-42              Editorial                    Is it intended to have the exact same lower operability limits for caribou and non-caribou blocks? If so OK, but I wanted to check, since two columns are not usually used.
                                                                                               2.3.7 Eligibility
     46   CES                1              160          24                 Editorial                    Suggest
                                                                                               2.3.7 Eligibility reworking the phrase 'At this time ...'
     47   CES                1              158          1                  Required                     Need to
                                                                                               2.3.7 Eligibility state relative importance of each criterion in identifying areas eligible. If in order of priority, or if all equal, please state so.
     48   CES                1              162          15                 Suggested                    STP will
                                                                                               2.4.1 Introduction be selected? May I suggest that the preferred STP is reviewed and an alternative is selected where necessary ...
     49   CES                1              162          21-23              Editorial                    Suggest
                                                                                               2.4.1 Introduction this sentence needs to be revised (incomplete and I understand you do not have new primary roads in this FMP).
     50   CES                1              162          28-32              Editorial                    Suggest
                                                                                               2.4.1 Introduction these sentences should be deleted as they speak to balancing details, and not 'introductory comments'. Perhaps this should be place with 2.4.7 discussion.
     51   CES                1              73           1                  Comment                      Not to take & Determ of Sust
                                                                                               2.3 Strat. Direction anything away from the remainder of the plan text, but the layout and documentation in Section 2.3 is excellent.
     52   CES                1              167          18                 Editorial                    'minor of Areas of Operations
                                                                                               2.4.2 Selection under allocation'
     53   CES                1              168          18                 Required                     Map 8.1b (renewal and tending)
                                                                                               2.4.2 Selection of Areas of Operations is missing from Appendix 7 in the regional copy. This is needed. Also suggest that the reference to the illustration of the selected areas should also include the 1:20000 area selected for operations maps.
     54   CES                2                                      Map 8.1Required            MAPS Map 8.1 only identifies 'harvest' in the title block. Since 8.1a/8.1b do not exist in the plan this title should be updated.
     55   CES                1              169          1                  Suggested                    Suggest this Operations
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions forintroduction (page 169-170) should be reworked as it is confusing as it attempts to cover a number of topics (disturbances, AOC prescriptions, prescriptions for other areas, and SGR's). Perhaps simplify this and leave the details to the discussion that follows.
     56   CES                1              170          20                 Suggested                    Suggest including 'certification page' as one of the locations where the exceptions are noted.
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
     57   CES                1              170          24-25              Editorial                    text block seems out of place.
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
     58   CES                1              170          34-38              Required                     This paragraph will need
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operationsto be updated to cover the new FMPM requirement (amendments). Suggest this be simplified as to ... if new values are encountered they will be addressed as per the FMPM(2006) planning requirements and reported as per FIM requirements. You may want to have a look at the values amendment decision key (I can provide) regarding amendments, if you really want to get into the details specific to new values encountered and actions required.
     59   CES                1              175          38-41              Suggested                    A couple of references to
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations'... as of the FMP submission' that may need to be updated for the final plan.
     60   CES                1              177          32-37              Editorial                    I would suggest that given
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations that you have not proposed PB's or aerial spray this text needs to be updated.
     61   CES                1              178          26                 Required                     This statement need to be
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations adjusted to reflect the requirement that it is the prescription that is developed in accordance with the guide, and it is the prescription in the plan that will be used.
     62   CES                1              178          35                 Suggested                    Unsure what is meant by 'influence compliance and the application of the scaling manual' since the FMP should set the requirements with regard to leaving merch. wood behind, as outlined in the scaling manual. Suggest this be deleted.
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
     63   CES                1              179          11                 Editorial                    suggest 'will Operations
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions forbe developed' instead of 'will be varied, and will be re-examined.'
     64   CES                1              179          37                 Required                     Missing a for Operations
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions statement to identify that this (the prescriptions outlined from the guide) will actually be used. See line 19-20.
     65   CES                1              182          11-31              Suggested                    Suggest these paragraphs
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations be inserted before the action to use BMP's (Line 32, pg 181)
     66   CES                1              182          34                 Suggested                    Suggest this Operations
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions fordiscussion be packaged with Section 2.4.4.1.2 to avoid duplication. If desire to keep with this section (as per FMPM layout) then perhaps cross reference each section. CDC has further requirements regarding this section (ID 200)
     68   CES                4                                              Required
                                                                    Other forest resources               Plan
                                                                                               Sup Docs is missing the SupDoc on 'Other forest resources' (FMPM A-138 , ln 7-14). Currently only the 'data gaps' are covered.
     70   HM                 1              IV                              Required                     FMP-18b is missing
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents from both the appendix and Tab FMP-18. You need to describe each allocation with clearcut area >260 ha. Each block has individual characteristics that lead it to being harvested in a cut >260 ha. The Declaration Order regarding MNR's Class EA approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands (T&C 15(d)) allows blocks >260 ha, provided there is rationale for each block. Each block must have a silvicultural and/or biological rationale described somewhere in the plan.
     71   CES                1              185          4-16               Suggested                    May wish to stress the 'carry over' of any uncut 2001 allocations, if these were also part of the rationale for the blocks (and associated substitution). Also, may wish to use Hassan's graphs to visually show the substitution related to each FU (insert small versions with each discussion), to assist in the explanation. The graphs go further than words can in showing that the allocations are really quite close.
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend

                                                                                                       I do not see the same level of detail as is covered on pages 203-204.
                                                                                                       Please either shorten or remove the entire paragraph and refer the reader
     72   CES                1              191          15-22                 Required                to the of Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecastmore detailed discussion on pages 203-204.
     73   HM                 1              27-30                              Required                Please discuss
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Descriptionmanagement implications of geology and soils on model assumptions / strategies / decisions etc. as per FMPM A-16 line 6-7.
     74   CES                1              61           12                    Suggested               Suggest text be
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description added after the first sentence, to outline that you actually have, in fact, identified BMP's to be applied as noted in 2.4.3.2 (Prescriptions for other areas).
     75   CES                1              195          21-26                 Editorial               Sentences (line 21 through line
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend 25) are duplicate to pg 194 line 41-42 and can be removed.
     76   CES                1              197          15-27                 Suggested               This 'individual tree retention'
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend discussion belongs in the 'Prescriptions for other areas' and should be located in close proximity to your snags discussion (page 178). See CDC alteration 210.
     77   CES                1              197          29-43                 Suggested               Entire of Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast section has already been reported on with associated actions to be applied in the 'Prescriptions for other areas' on page 181-182. Suggest this be consolidated in that section.
     78   HM                 1              61           5-8                   Required                Please change
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Descriptionthe previous 10 year period to read 1991-2001 as per footnote in FMP-6.
     80   HM                 1              68           31                    Required                Please Economic Description
                                                                                               2.2.3 Social andinclude Devlin timber in the industrial profile as the social economic impact modeling was conducting on the assumption that Devlin still has commitments of 11,000 m3 out of the Kenora Forest
     81   CES                1              200          17                    Suggested               Suggest discussion needs to
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tenddeal with the HWD, PJP and SPU as these FU's make up the majority of your volume loss associated with the selected stands.
     82   CES                1              201          32-33                 Required                Please delete Renew & Tend
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,the end of this sentence as the allocation maps should never designate areas to licensees (FMPM A-105, ln 22-24)

  83      CES                1              202          28-33               Required                  Suggest this text be reworked.
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend It seems out of place in dealing with contingency, but if the intent is to tie in the requirements to leave residual patches, then this needs to be clarified. Also, I am confused as to the FMP amendment requirement when earlier text identified that they can be adjusted at the time of operations (pg 197). This apparent contradiction needs to be addressed
  84      CES                1              202          36                  Editorial                 not 'allocated', Renew & Tend
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, but perhaps 'considered for allocation ...'
  85      CES                1              203          39                  Suggested                 Suggest tying Renew & Tend
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, last sentence into identification in AWS (footnote on ASFO maps)
  86      CES                1              204          9                   Required                  Some of Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast contradiction exists in the way fuelwood is being treated with the text (page 177, ln 32-37; page 204 ln 9; page 203 ln 39) which refers to locations being mapped while the map does not show any areas. Suggest footnote on ASFO should be clear that all harvest area are selected (likely to occur) and that specific locations will be identified at the AWS stage, and the text adjusted accordingly.
  87      CES                1              206          7                   Editorial                 Table of Harv, be introduced
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast needs to Renew & Tend(FMP-25)
  89      CES                1                                               Required          FMP-25Revised table that reflects text needs to submitted
  90      CES                1              209          1-23                Required                  Some of Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast information is missing regarding procurement, stock type and year. Also, should identify the proposed growers that you have under contract.
  91      MED                1              102          26                  Editorial                 Typo on line 26 reads "round rule". It should read ground rule.
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives
  92      HM                 1              92           9                   Required                  Please correct text as
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management AlternativesLEAP2 was not used to quantify spatial acceptability.
  93      HM                 1              112          8                   Required                  Please identify in the text
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives or as a footnote to the FMP-10 what "best management practices" will be used to mitigate nutrient loss on ES 11 & 12.
  94      MED                1              94           25                  Editorial                 typo...line Alternatives
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management25 NDPE..should this not read NDPEG.
  95      CES                1              212          6                   Editorial                 Are Roads
                                                                                               2.4.5 Accessall the areas with tertiary road conditions actually shown as modified harvest, or is it that the conditions have been portrayed on the ASFO maps.
  96      CES                1              213          14                  Editorial                 'Only the selected corridor is shown ... '
                                                                                               2.4.5 Access Roads
  97      CES                1                                               Required          FMP-26FMP-26 uses a term 'as required' to describe the planned maintenance. The activities need to be clearly documented and I would suggest a footnote is needed. I would also suggest the explanation build on the routine maintenance description in the EG for access roads and water crossings, and the text on page 213 (ln 27-32) be tied into this description. Also, note that footnote 2 has been truncated
  98      CES                1              216          24-37               Required                  Section needs
                                                                                               2.4.5 Access Roads to be tightened up. Examples include 'will be accommodated by observing measures ...'. Also, the sentence on line 29-30 is missing the fact that even those streams not identified on OBM's are still values and still required AOC's. Lastly I would suggest this paragraph should also acknowledge the new requirements for amendments FMPM(2004) as related to roads and new values, or changes in values.
  99      CES                1              217          23-25               Editorial                 Suggest this
                                                                                               2.4.5 Access Roads text also acknowledge the requirements regarding this (new values, change in crossing location or conditions, etc.) under the FMPM(2004).
 100      CES                1              217          30                  Required                  What is meant
                                                                                               2.4.5 Access Roads by 'will implement the best practices contained within ... ' If these are conditions they should be stated in the FMP.
 102      CES                1              218          9                   Editorial                 '... and maintained ...'
                                                                                               2.4.5 Access Roads
 103      CES                1              218          25                  Editorial                 Text Roads
                                                                                               2.4.5 Access is dated and '... at this point' should be replace by something like '... in this FMP'
 104      CES                1              219          4                   Suggested                 While the text
                                                                                               2.4.5 Access Roads talks to 3 primary roads with travel restrictions, FMP-26 has 5 primary roads and 12 secondary roads with access restrictions. Suggest these others should be discussed if the intent is to cover 'roads with access restrictions' as titled.
 105      MED                1              108          6                   Comment                   Silvicultural Exceptions.
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives Seeding on ES 17,23,24,27,28,29,30,32,33. On the Kenora Forest the chances of success for seed conifer on these sites is very limited, especially ES 27 to 33. Company should review and justify this strategy.
 106      MED                1              109          23-24               Comment                   Silvicultural Intensity Options by FU.The plan suggests that access is a default to applying and extensive treatments. Access or lack of should not be the driver to identify treatments. Example being, all operations on the WC4 would be extensive due to the fact there are no all weather roads. This should be reworded.
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives
 107      CES                1              223          32                  Editorial                 Text still of Harv, Renew & Tend to SMA
                                                                                               2.4.7 Comparisonrefers to old FMP-25. 16,855 ha is projected for treatment (109%) in the new FMP-25.
 108      CES                1              228          15                  Suggested                 Suggest of 2nd order watershed discussion include the proposed actions outlined in the FMP (BMP's).
                                                                                               2.4.7 ComparisontheHarv, Renew & Tend to SMA
 109      CES                1              228          35                  Editorial                 I think the of Harv, Renew should to 10%
                                                                                               2.4.7 Comparison 2% volume loss & Tend be SMA as discussed earlier in the plan text, unless this is referring to something else. If this is something else it will need to described/explained.
 110      CES                1                                               R
                                                                       FMP-13b equired         FMP-13Numbers for objective 4c are missing for both KF2006 and SMAv10.
 111      CES                1                                               Required          FMP-10On ES 11/12 where mech. SIP is proposed I only see the CR noted for the SIP, while at the same time these sites are also identified as FT, TL, or CTL. (e.g. SGR 3.10). You have noted this FT logging in your exceptions page and these need to be identified as exceptions in the SGR's (E in the P/E column).
 112      CES                1              87           32                  Required                  Discussion is missing on the
                                                                                               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning Context very low utilization within the working circles or the forest as a whole?. This was identified in the RPFO and IFA and should be noted in this issues section. Note that this will need to be addressed in the associated SupDoc for related to IFA recommendations.
 113      MED                1              114          27                  Comment                   Is correct? or should is
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives be reworded to indicate it's 4 years after the original regeneration treatment.

                                                                                                       Re; target density levels. This need to be better explained and defined. I
                                                                                                       would suggest that there is a range based on intensity
                                                                                                       e.g.. extensive 1200-1500 stems/ha
                                                                                                          basic 1500-2000 stems/ha
                                                                                                          intensive 2000-3500 stems/ha
                                                                                                       On sites that have a wide range of mix species there needs to be a
                                                                                                       relationship back to the desired density of each species not a catch all for
 114      MED                1              114          38-41                 Comment                 all species.
                                                                                               2.3.3 Management Alternatives
 115      CES                1              233          33                    Suggested               What and the FRI monitoring that was documented on page 85 (ln 18-28). Suggest this monitoring belongs in this section.
                                                                                               2.5 MonitoringaboutAssessment
 116      CES                1              234          3-6                   Editorial               Suggest this sentence
                                                                                               2.5 Monitoring and Assessmentbe reworked.
 117      CES                1                                                 Required        FMP-10Need to remove the natural depletion 'catch-all' SGR, as you have already noted the use of the appropriate SGR based on site conditions encountered.
 118      CES                1                                                 Suggested       FMP-10You have STP that are identical except for tending (one with cleaning one without) and they can be combined into a single STP with tending 'as necessary'. (e.g. ccOPOO and ccOPHO in SGR 2.01).
 119      CES                1                                                 Editorial       FMP-10Note that the comments in SGR 2.01 do not apply to this SGR as these ES are not represented. Also these comments/conditions are going to be needed on each SGR where they do apply. Also, I see that you have SGR's for both OHW and UCB and I question if these are necessary since you do not have a forecasted harvest area in these FU's (carryover treatments?)
 120      CES                2                                                 Editorial
                                                                       compliance plan                 Note
                                                                                               Appendices that the first and last page of the Compliance Plan contain FMP headers and content not associated with the compliance plan itself, and this should be removed.
 121      CES                2                                                 Required
                                                                       Appendix 6b                     Missing the rationale for those planned disturbances where additional residual is not being provided. Teams have used a coding system and placed an additional column in table 2 with the codes explained in the text (Kenogami FMP). Suggest talking to Kevin regarding this documentation.
                                                                                               Appendices
 122      CES                1              9-10                               Editorial       -       Need to correct binder references for final plan, especially if a number of the appendices and Sup Doc's are placed on CD. Also, note that this listing may need to be customized for some locations
                                                                                                       CMX SGR 2.01 Why did the Company select an exception (NR) for both
                                                                                                       the preferred and second order selection of STP and not a CR or R
                                                                                                       prescription?
 124      MED                1                                         table 10 Comment        FMP-10
                                                                                                       CMX 2.01STP ccOSOT. Without SIP this STP is highly unlikely to
                                                                                                       achieve PJP intensive 1 on these ES types. Especially on ES
                                                                                                       22,25,26,27,32.
                                                                                                       This approach could be achievable if SGR were separated by dry, fresh,
                                                                                                       moist ES types.
                                                                                                       This approach was agreed upon (Dawe Pyke Wilkie Lane) at a
                                                                                                       silvicultural task team meeting held on December 1/04. The SGR split
                                                                                                       was to occur as
                                                                                                       ES 11-16 dry
                                                                                                       ES 17-29 fresh
 126      MED                1                                         table 10 Required       FMP-1030+        moist
 127      CES                4                                                  Editorial
                                                                       plan review                     I
                                                                                               Sup Docsdo not see a SupDoc tab for plan review and approval documentation.
 128      CES                4                                                  Required
                                                                       LCC reports             Sup DocsWhile this report covers the agreement statement it is short on the other information as outlined in the FMPM (A-146 ln 38 to A-147 ln 4).
 129      CES                4                                    154105470 Required           MAPS Comments on the sample map provide for review:1) Caution on the use of 'proposed' in the legend, as this will need to be changed for the final plan.2) Patent land band across water?3) Missing road names to tie in road SupDoc?4) AOC's over Patent Land?5) Where Longpoint Road crosses AOC#E1-02 the corridor needs to be reduced to 100m. In fact AOC #E1-02 does not exist (i.e. No AOC E1) and you actually have a crossing of AOC N2 and a crossing of AOC ON3 and both of these need to be shown and correctly identified on the maps with the associated 100m corridor. See CDC comments 255 and 256 for further details.
 130      CES                4                                    153805550 Required           MAPS Comments on the sample map provide for review:1)why are existing road crossings on existing roads flagged with both orange shading (no-cut reserve?) and crosshatching (potential tertiary road crossing?)?
 131      CES                4                                    153405520 Required           MAPS Comments on the sample map provide for review:1) access to block 492 is not apparent, since it looks like access would need to go across CH AOC's. Was this missed.2) Is harvest of the CH AOC proposed in the top and east side of Block 495 - green overlaps the CH AOC. If so can the operator tell that the modified conditions on harvest are different between these areas and the remainder of the block (which is also subject to a modified operation). I only see the TVt AOC identified under the Block number. Perhaps another shading of Green may help (Just a suggestion ... )
 132      CES                6                                                  Suggested              While
                                                                                               AOC Sup Doc the plan has been excellent on referring Eagle nest sites as sensitive nest sites, the text within the AOC's documentation (and perhaps even the Road Sup Doc's) should be reviewed and the term replaced with 'sensitive nest'. (e.g. AOC N2, part III for E1-02 on Longpoint Road).
 134      IDP                1              VI           5                      Editorial              Suggest adding that
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents Matt was also TJ planning forester up until spring (April or May?) 2005
 135      IDP                1              II                                  Required               As per figure A-6,
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents page A-181 in FMPM, please add name of plan author's organization. For consistency with the SFL document, company name should be "Weyerhaeuser Company Limited - Trus Joist, Kenora Operations". This goes between lines with MNR district/ region and the 20 year period.
 136      IDP                1              II                                  Required               In addition to alteration # 6, the words "approved by" must be moved to be beside the regional director's name as per FMPM.
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents
 137      IDP                1              VI           13, 17 and 20          Editorial              Add and Contents
                                                                                               1.0 Approval "Independent Nations" to Wabaseemoong and "First Nation" to Wauzhusk Onigum in listing of team members.
 138      IDP                1              VI           5, 7                   Required               Identify Matt and Steve as planning team co-chairs in listing of planning team members.
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents
 139      IDP                1              VII          25                     Editorial              Change Contents
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and name of Henry's affiliation from cottagers to "Lake of the Woods district property owners association".
 140      HM                 1              149                                 Required               Table of MA
                                                                                               2.3.5 SelectionFMP-14 must be introduced or referenced in the text of the plan. You should also reference or include the assumptions used in calculating revenue and expenditures. Also, there are no supporting graphs as required by the FMPM.
 141      MED                1                                         table 21 Required       FMP-21FMP21 Forecast of Harvest Volume by speciesthis table identified that there is a total of 21,201 m3 of "other conifer" forecasted to be harvested. What is this species and is this accurate? There is no text that describes FMP 21.
 142      IDP                1              VIII         12-13                  Required               For and Contents
                                                                                               1.0 Approval consistency with the SFL document, company name should be initially referred to as "Weyerhaeuser Company Limited - Trus Joist, Kenora Operations" and then state the wording already there that "Trus Joist" or "the company" will be used.
 143      CDC                4                                                   B
                                                                       Sup DocRequired                 Sup
                                                                                               Sup Docs Doc B List of Implementation Manuals: contents of this section does not meet FMPM pg A-138 line 3 requirements; remove what is there & replace with 'List of Implementation Manuals which were used in preparation of the plan'; this was covered at FMP training, including recent reviewers training; list there now is outdated (Sept 2003) & includes many documents that are not implementation manuals (forest management guides)& many documents that would not have been used; use most recent list provided (Feb 2004) & edit to list which guides were used
 144      CDC                4                                                   E
                                                                       Sup DocRequired                 Sup
                                                                                               Sup Docs Doc E: does not meet requirements of FMPM pg A-139 lines 21-23 'a summary of how results of any audits which have been undertaken for MU, in particular independent audits, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE FMP; was covered at FMP training; remove this as it is just a photocopy of part of RPFO, with information not relevant to FMPM requirement (text, unrelated recommendations, best practices), missing required information (how addressed in FMP) AND it is about 1991-98 audit period (which should have been dealt with in previous 2001 plan); needs to include info about relevant results from 2004 audit (can be done without writing out R/S specifically as report not yet public); is about 'results' so deal with R & S - use draft action plan as source of info; discuss with reviewer/submit in advance of plan resubmission since missing in draft plan
 145      HM                 1              192          8-11                   Required               Please adjust Renew & "Since
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,text to readTend there was no local fire history information available at the time of planning, the template developed for this plan was based on two existing provincial fire history databases. The first provides fire history information for 1920-2000 timeframe and contains only those fires greater than 200 hectares in size (based on Donnelly and Harrington fire history maps as refined by the OMNR fire program). The second database is the Ontario forest fire database and it contains fires of all sizes for the 1976 to 2000 period. Theses two databases represent the best available information at the time of plan production for Ecodistrict 4S1 and 4S6". Please adjust text in Appendix 6B page 3-4 as well.
 146      HM                 1              194          34                     Required               Table of Harv, Renew does not
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast 1 in Appendix 6B& Tend show the spatial and temporal assessment, but a summary of planned clearcuts which exceed 260 ha. Please adjust the text and/or table to reflect this assessment.
 147      HM                 1              195          23                     Required               Incorrect reference, please correct.
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend
 149      CDC                1              30           5                      Required               re 'based on the
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description interpretive guide'; this is technically incorrect (so have shown as 'required alteration') because Book II is PART OF the guide; the guide has 3 Books, the guide is not based on Book II); it appears this plan would have used Books I & II of this guide
 150      CDC                1              62           29                     Required               re 'Any exceptions
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description to the guidelines will be clearly identified with a monitoring plan as per planning manual directives' needs to be removed; the plan does not identify any exceptions to the eagle Guide & therefore previous sentence 'will ensure their protection by development of appropriate AOC prescriptions' is what is relevant to this plan
 151      CDC                1              63           27                     Required               re 'The guidelines
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description for protecting wild rice areas prescribe no-cut buffers'; reviewer is not aware of any 'guideline' for dealing with wild rice, this is why AOC prescriptions for this value are filled out in Part III 'no implementation manual'; this value may be addressed the same as fisheries/water quality, but there is no forest management guide that addresses it; please discuss with reviewer to ensure what is meant is understood & then clarified
 152      CDC                1              68           29                     Required               for and Economic Description
                                                                                               2.2.3 Socialindustrial uses of the forest FMPM pg A-35 lines 17-18 requires that any timber commitments, including supply agreements from the forest be identified in this section; this section of the plan is missing reference to these requirements
 153      CDC                1              26           35                     Required               further to CES ID#26 reference to 'SEV Briefing Note' needs to be shown after all of the strategic discussion is done, because it needs to be based on Beyond 2000 & updated with Our Sustainable Future; also add reference to the latest strategic direction such as 'The more recent Beyond 2000 was in place during production of this FMP, until release of the most recent Strategic Direction Our Sustainable Future in February 2005. Therefore, during production of this plan MNR's Statement of Environmental Values has been considered and the SEV Briefing Note located in Appendix 2 of this FMP is based on both Beyond 2000 and Our Sustainable Future.'; refer to 15 July 05 forest management branch Advice for Preparation of SEV Briefing Notes for draft 2006 FMPs
                                                                                               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning Context



                                                                                                        incorrect that DLUG continues to be relevant in providing area specific
                                                                                                        land uses & resource management direction; revise by replacing DLUG
                                                                                                        with CLUP Atlas as covered at FMP training; also pg 80 does correctly
                                                                                                        refer to Atlas, but this reference to table 7 should be with this section on
                                                                                                        pg 77-78 rather than at end under 'Shoal Lake Watershed Plan'; copied
                                                                                                        from CLUP Atlas itself: 'Crown Land Use Policy Atlas is the official
                                                                                                        source of area specific land use policy for Crown lands in a large part of
                                                                                                        Ontario. The geographic scope of Atlas includes OLL planning area, plus
                                                                                                        Manitoulin Island; CLUP Atlas brings together all area specific land use
                                                                                                        policies for Crown lands into one source location; all future area specific
                                                                                                        land use planning for Crown lands will be undertaken as amendments to
                                                                                                        CLUP Atlas.'
 154      CDC                1              78           2                     Required        2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning Context
 155      CDC                1              79           43                    Required                 sup doc B & Determ of not show implementation manuals (now termed forest management guides) used in preparation of plan as required & that sup doc needs revision (see ID#143); also implementation manuals are not part of 'Shoal Lake Watershed Plan' but are another source of direction so add heading 'Forest Management Guides'; also CLUP Atlas topic & FMP-7 is misplaced (see ID#154)
                                                                                               2.3 Strat. Directionactually does Sust
 156      CDC                1              10           8                     Editorial                re binder#4: actual
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents label on binder is 'Appendices A-L', but this needs to be revised to 'Sup Doc A-L' to match pg 10; also binder #6 is labeled as Appendices N-O, this needs to be 'Sup Doc N-O' to match pg 10; pg 10 line 30-41 shows binder #7 but this information is in binder#6
 157      HM                 1              199          24                    Comment                  Consider using a table that compares average species comp, stocking, and site class of the harvest areas with the entire forest as part of the explanation of volume differences on FMP-20.
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend
 158      CDC                1              84           17                    Required                 re sources of issues in terms
                                                                                               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning Context of reference being 2004 IFA: since final audit report was received in April 2005, question how audit could have been used as sources for issues in terms of reference; also line 36 says 'following is an overview of issues identified in ABOVE DOCUMENTS' - but is this not just from terms of reference, does not read as if anything is from an audit; also editorial - this page repeats 3 times that audits are a source of information (lines 10, 17, 32)
 159      HM                 1              201          18-19                 Required                 This statement is incorrect. The
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend Kenora Forest received an SFL in April 8, 2002. Please correct.
 160      IDP                1              VIII         33-34                 Suggested
                                                                       Section 1.4 - preface            Please provide further explanation to the statement "... the link between the proposed work... and the required financial resources...."
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents
 161      CDC                2                                                 Required
                                                                       Appendix 2                       SEV
                                                                                               Appendices Briefing Note: is not in this appendix; as per FMP training BN using Beyond 2000 was to be prepared & use direction re 'Our Sustainable Future' once available; this direction has now been provided - update using 15 July 05 direction from forest management branch 'Advice for Preparation of SEV Briefing Notes for draft 2006 FMPs'; it is recognized that this direction was provided after draft plan submission; reviewer requests SEV BN be submitted as soon as possible as a draft has not been seen, to facilitate plan review and approval
 162      CDC                1              170          9                     Required                 pg 170-176: it Operations
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for is not clear, given level of detail & way sup doc is referenced WHAT are actual approved AOC prescriptions as required of FMPM; at start pg 170 line 11 add new paragraph: 'The selected prescriptions for all AOCs within the areas selected for operations for the five-year term are presented in Table FMP-17. This includes areas of operations from the 2001-2006 plan that require silviculture operations in this plan term. Documentation of the decision making process to identify the selected prescription is included in the AOC supplementary documentation N. The AOCs are identified on the areas selected for operations maps. FMP-17, the AOC sup doc and maps are linked by the AOC code (identifier)'; pg 171 end of line 1 add '(refer to FMP-17 for the selected prescription)'; delete pg 170 lines 27-32 & pg 176 line 20 as now corrected/included in above; also refer to ID#163
 163      CDC                1              173          44                    Required                 pg 174 lines 13-38: AOC
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operationsprescription does not go in plan text & needs to be removed - just reference FMP-17/sup doc as done & remove prescription; FMPM requires prescription in AOC sup doc & selected prescription in FMP-17; ensure what is required for HPCH values is documented in FMP-17/sup doc
 164      CDC                1              171          34                    Required                 line 34: remove reference
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations to Code of Practice as there is nothing in it about what is permitted in 30-90m AOCs for cold or cool water systems, this direction comes from Fish Guide (Code refers to leaving minimum 3m filter strip); line 34 revise 'recommends no clear cutting in AOC reserves' to 'does not recommend clear cutting in AOCs' (Fish Guide only refers to selection cutting, it does not say 'no clear cutting, reserve = no operations); line 37 this sentence is about coolwater 'systems'; therefore revise '(no more than 50% of the shoreline)' to '(no more than 50% of the shoreline of lakes and no more than 50% of the length of streams)' to correspond with the Fish Guide
 165      CDC                1              171          42                    Required                 statement for Operations
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptionsabout wild rice & low quality moose aquatic values being 'included' with water quality AOCs because 'reserves for these values' were 'based on similar slopes' is technically incorrect; these AOCs do not have 'wild rice' & 'low quality moose aquatics' listed as values with a grouped AOC that includes them; need to revise - it appears what is meant is something like: 'Wild rice and low quality moose aquatic feeding area values do not have specific AOC prescriptions. Where these values may occur they will be adequately addressed by the fisheries/water quality prescription.'
 166      CDC                1              172          14                    Editorial                name of Heron Guide is incorrect; revise to 'Management Guidelines for THE PROTECTION OF Heronries in Ontario'
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
 167      CDC                1              173          43                    Required                 shows January 2003 version
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations of cultural heritage note, however, this 2006 plan was required to use the 'November 2004' version
 168      CDC                1              176          8                     Required                 line 8: refers to 'buffers' along highways & then 'AOC reserves'... ONLY applied to Hwy 17 in this FMP; this 1st sentence appears to be generic & not applicable to THIS FMP; text needs to correspond to the plan; either remove 1st sentence or revise to something like 'Corridors include areas along provincial highways.'; line 17: refers to new 'guidelines' - there is no Guide related to this, believe this refers to the new MNR procedure; revise to specifically name procedure are referring to
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
 169      IDP                1              10           14                    Suggested                Suggest changing
                                                                                               1.0 Approval and Contents forest management audits to independent forest audits.
 170      IDP                1              11           24                    Required                 Please
                                                                                               2.1 Introduction add wording to end of the sentence on wood going to other mills in the region such as "... but the priority is to provide wood to SFL appendix E and F mills."
 171      IDP                1              11           34                    Editorial                Add Redditt to the list of communities.
                                                                                               2.1 Introduction
 172      IDP                1              12           32                    Required                 The number of objectives in this FMP is 8, not 10. Please change.
                                                                                               2.1 Introduction
 173      IDP                1              13           27-29                 Required                 For sentence starting "This plan follows the..." please change to "This 2006 plan follows...." for clarity. Also the date of approval by the regional director needs to be changed to February 5, 2001.
                                                                                               2.1 Introduction
 174      IDP                1              13           43                    Editorial                Suggest
                                                                                               2.1 Introduction changing the start of sentence "Following the RSA process..." to "As per the RSA process....".
 175      IDP                1              15           5,6                   Editorial                Change sentence to "The forest is administered as the Kenora West and Lake of the Woods areas..." instead of Kenora south.
                                                                                               2.2.1 Administration
 176      IDP                1              15           8-10                  Editorial                Figure 2 doesn't show wood receiving mills. The figure and text don't match.
                                                                                               2.2.1 Administration
 177      IDP                1              15           18                    Required                 Change ACI
                                                                                               2.2.1 Administration Whiskey Jack forest to just Whiskey Jack forest or Whiskey Jack forest managed by ACI.
 178      IDP                1              16           1                     Required                 Need to change August 2002 to July 2002 or simply make it 2002. Also need to mention that an annual MOU for Trus Joist conducting silviculture operations was in place since approximately 1999.
                                                                                               2.2.1 Administration
 179      IDP                1              16           4, 9                  Editorial                The number
                                                                                               2.2.1 Administration of licensees is now 16 instead of 17.
 180      IDP                1              16           9, 10                 Required                 Please change the wording on First Nation communities holding FRL's to holding harvest allocations. As with any operator, they may not necessarily hold a FRL at all times nor be conducting forest operations at all times.
                                                                                               2.2.1 Administration
 181      IDP                1              16           12, 13                Required                 Need to add
                                                                                               2.2.1 Administration that harvest operations are also carried out under the SFL with harvest approvals issued directly to the SFL holder.
 182      IDP                1              20           27                    Suggested                Was this meant
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Descriptionto refer to "Terrestrial and Wetland Ecosites of NW Ontario" and the Book II: Silvicultural Guide rather than the FEC for NW Ontario as the FRI was done by ecosite rather than V-type?
 183      IDP                1              22           26                    Editorial                Typo before "other
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description working circles...". "That" was used instead of "than".
 184      IDP                1              24           6                     Editorial                Please add the word "often" to "they were artificially...." to say "they were often artificially...."
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description
 185      IDP                1              30-32                              Suggested                In this section, suggest discussing the impact of the 1991 blowdown on the forest condition.
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description
 186      IDP                1              34           5                     Editorial                A word appears
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description to be missing between conservation reserves and EMA.
 187      IDP                1              35           32                    Editorial                At start of Barren
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description and scattered sentence, please add "In table FMP-2..." before barren and scattered.
 188      IDP                1              38           21                    Editorial                At the end of the
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description sentence, suggest changing it to "... within the last 20-25 years" to reflect the 1983 fires.
 189      IDP                1              38           27                    Required                 Need to reword
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Descriptionsentence for the jack pine WG as now the 21-40 year age class has the most area of the jack pine age classes.
 190      IDP                1              44           22                    Editorial                Was this meant
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Descriptionto say FMP-1b instead of 1c or both? Table 1c has most of the explanations of variances.
 191      IDP                1              44           23, 24                Comment                  For Description
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest the variance in land base from the 2001 to 2006 FMP, the OLL areas wouldn't really apply to this as they were already taken out of the landbase available for harvest in the 2001 FMP.
 192      IDP                1              46           25-27                 Editorial                The sentence starting with "This methodology ..." doesn't follow. Please reword.
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description
 193      IDP                1              47           22                    Editorial                Add the word "almost" in front of "40% of the managed Crown land...."
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description
 194      IDP                1              48           29                    Editorial                This refers to section 2.3.5.5 but meant to say 2.3.5?
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description
 195      IDP                1              50           2                     Editorial                Section 2.3.4.2.3
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description should read 2.3.4.2
 196      IDP                1              51           22, 23                Editorial                Need commas or
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description rewording in the first part of the sentence starting "Using FRI..."
 197      IDP                1              60           13-19 and 34-38       Comment                  Lines 13 to 19 and
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description 34 to 38 on page 60 seem to be making the same general points. Could these portions of text be combined together?
 198      CDC                1              181          37                    Required                 re 'modified clearcutting techniques will be CONSIDERED'; have shown this as required alteration because it seems the word 'considered' is not appropriate, would need to follow SGRs which need to follow silviculture guides; so the SGRs should already be showing appropriate harvest methods, advance growth for appropriate ES; also pg 182 line 3 re '5. locations of springs & intermittent steams will be CONSIDERED' in road location' - what does 'considered mean', what are the conditions on operations at springs & intermittent streams (cross reference to appropriate AOC, or if covered under roads or describe)
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
 199      IDP                1              51           14, 15                Required                 The sentence starting "These areas were not deferred...." that refers to the 2001 FMP is incorrect. The areas were deferred. Please correct or remove sentence. Not exactly sure of the purpose for these 2 sentences discussing the 2001 FMP marten cores.
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description
 200      CDC                1              182          44                    Required                 this section is Operations
                                                                                               2.4.3 Prescriptions for about planned clearcuts not disturbances so that discussion along with what was actually achieved for NDPEG needs to be moved where rest is in section 2.4.4.1.2); this section within prescriptions for all other areas needs information required of FMPM pg A-93 lines 6-18 & pg A-95(graph/chart showing planned clearcut area & frequency by size class, maximum & average size of planned clearcuts (this is not found till pg 183 line 21), exceptions for planned clearcuts >260ha location identified with rationale for THE location); noticed Appendix 6B has table re exceptions mixed in with spatial analysis, however, FMPM clearly states plan TEXT requirements (can't find table 18b); note figure on FMPM pg A-95 is refered to under 'prescriptions for all other areas' pg A-93 line 9; it's not part of 'depletion' section; this alteration will assist with avoiding confusion among planned clearcuts vs disturbance requirements
 201      IDP                1              33           30-34                 Required                 As Description
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forestper FMPM page A-17, line 38 and 39, this section of the plan needs to discuss the reliability of the forecasts.
 203      CDC                1              194          37                    Required                 discussion on Renew clearcuts
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,planned & Tend including exceptions needs to be under 'prescriptions for all other areas' (see ID#200); this section could include discussion on meeting NDPEG requirement of 80% of planned clearcuts being <260 ha as is there now as this is part of NDPEG spatial analysis requirement rather than FMPM planned clearcut requirements; note pg 195 line 8 shows average planned clearcut size as 180 ha but pg 183 line 21 shows 183 ha; if using same heading as now shown on pg 194 line 37 cross reference to planned clearcut discussion on pg 182 for the other info (size classes, exceptions, etc.)
 204      CDC                2                                                 Required
                                                                       Appendix 6B                      Appendix 6B pg 10 last sentence: it is incorrect to say 'This matches the STANDARD within the NDPEG to have 20% of planned clearcuts greater than 260 ha'; there is no such 'standard' in NDPEG; this needs to be revised to reflect what the actual standard is: 80% of planned clearcuts should be less than 260ha (NDPEG pg 3 last paragraph)
                                                                                               Appendices
 205      IDP                1              62           27-29                 Required                 Please reword this
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Description sentence around who is ensuring the eagles' protection as the SFL now also has a responsibility to develop appropriate AOCs when writing the plan.
 206      HM                 1              207-208      15                    Required                 You have included forest renewal
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend limits in your strategic modeling. Please discuss the implication of these limits as it relates to your plan objectives. There were no discussion in objective section and Appendix 8A of the draft plan.
 207      IDP                1              66           15, 16                Required                 Please change
                                                                                               2.2.2 Forest Descriptionend of sentence to say "... the shelterwood system for the white pine shelterwood forest unit."
 209      IDP                1              67           17-19                 Editorial                Does the listing of communities
                                                                                               2.2.3 Social and Economic Description in lines 17 to 19 need to match the listing in lines 25-27?
 210      CDC                1              197          15                    Required                 this section 'individual & Tend
                                                                                               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew tree retention' belongs in 'prescriptions for all other areas' because this is actually part of 'prescriptions' that need to be followed during operations; this is why this alteration is shown as required
 211      CDC                1                                         FMP-26Required          FMP-26FMP-26 access control does not meet FMPM requirement by showing 'yes'; needs to be revised to meet FMPM pg A-124 'if applicable, enter a brief summary of type of access control (under Public Lands Act or any other form of regulation) which is planned by road during this term'; also abandonment if 'water crossing removal' is forecast this is to be identified by road
 212      CDC                1              229          6                     Required                 Re 'EFFECTS MONITORING is also conducted in order to document both positive & negative effects to forest cover & forest values that may have resulted from operational activities. The information collected is used to prepare annual reports...& for audit purposes'; this appears to be copied from FMPM, however, is inappropriate for THIS plan, since section 2.5 does not have anything re this 'effects monitoring' and is not relevant to 'audit purposes'; also line 11 'It may
                                                                                               2.5 Monitoring and Assessment
347   HM    1                                       Required            MAPS Some inconsistency between BlockID#, AOCID# and Stand listing e.g.. Block# 368 should read 378 for AOCID#MAcl-3650_5700 and MAcl-3655_5702. Please reconcile all these inconsistency.
348   LOS   1      24         23                    Comment                     Harvest blocks were small relative to what? current harvesting methods?
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description
349   IDP   1                                       Required
                                            Tables FMP-23, 24, 27       FMP-23Tables FMP-23, 24, and 27 identified that there is a total of 21,201 m3 of "other conifer" forecasted to be harvested. This should be listed under cedar if all or some of this volume is actually cedar.
350   IDP   1                               FMP-16Editorial             FMP-16For UCB and OHW forest units, need to revise the entry on the bottom line of the table for "projected change". Please enter zero or perhaps "N/A" for these 2 columns.
351   IDP   1                                       foot notes
                                            FMP 10 Required             FMP-10Footnote # 5 in SGRs - just before the last sentence of the footnote, it states "see groundrules comment 15.1 - 15.4". This "15.1-15.4" is not in the main part of the SGRs nor in footnote # 15. This needs to be corrected. Also for this footnote # 5, the sentence starting "best management practices that result....." is incomplete and needs to be corrected.
352   HM    1                          153805540 Required               MAPS Missing Block ID for PolyID #644_381378_5542133. Please correct
                                                                                Line 16-22 explains the reclassification of some of the old road systems
                                                                                on the Unit. Line 20 states that the roads have been reclassified from
                                                                                tertiary to secondary.
                                                                                Many of the roads identified are all ready secondary and may need to be
                                                                                reclassified as primary.
                                                                                Check 2001-2021 FMP 26 and reword.
                                                                                Also reference is made of the "whitefish Road" do you mean the white
353   MED   1      215        20                   Required                     road Roads
                                                                        2.4.5 Access or whitefish road?
354   MED   1                               FMP 26Required              FMP-26FMP 26 Abandonment section. It is no longer acceptable to use "natural abandonment" as identified in McColm FRWCI report.
355   MED   1      220        20                   Editorial                    Line Roads
                                                                        2.4.5 Access 20 remove the word "Ministry"
356   LOS   1      172        4                    Required                     In line 5 please add " All water crossings will follow the process outlined in the Protocol for the Review of Water Crossings Proposed Through the Forest management Planning Process and the Stream Crossing Toolkit for the Kenora Forest".These publications will need to be included as appendices.
                                                                        2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
357   LOS   1      63         8                    Required                     Change sentence
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description on lines 7-8 to read " Six caribou were captured and 3 cows were fitted with radio collars in 1998".Add " During the winter of 1998/1999, one of the collared caribou died as a result of wolf predation".
358   LOS   1      63         8                    Required                     Also add " Two
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Descriptionadditional collars were fitted to cow caribou in February 2000".
359   MED   5                                      Required
                                            Appendix M                          In the
                                                                        Road Sup Docenvironmental analysis section under "effects on other values" there are several references to MAFA in areas where deer are being managed. Since it has been agreed, that no MAFA are required in deer management area, this reference should be deleted.
                                                                                Somewhere within the plan text (prescriptions for areas of concern) you
                                                                                will need to refer to and include some text describing the new Protocol for
                                                                                the Review of Water Crossings and the Stream Crossing Toolkit for the
                                                                                Kenora Forest.
                                                                                Also the flow chart for unmapped creeks will need to be referenced and
                                                                                appended.
360   LOS   1                                       Required            2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
361   LOS   5                                       Required                    Appendix M when referencing the Caribou Falls Section....The area in which you refer to as the English River is actually considered to be the Winnipeg River.The Winnipeg River is defined for enforcement purposes as:The outflow of Lake of the Woods to the Manitoba border, including: Middle, Muriel, Gun, Pistol, Lost , Little Sand, Big Sand, Hidden, Roughrock, Swan, Tetu and Eaglenest Lakes, the MacFarlane River downstream from the Ena Lake Dam and that portion of the English River from the confluence of the Winnipeg and English Rivers upstream to the Caribou Falls Dam.
                                                                        Appendices
362   LOS   1      170        36                    Editorial                   the word "determined" should read "determine"
                                                                        2.4 Operational Planning
363   IDP   1      204        24                    Comment                     Devlin is missing from the list
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend of mills on line 24 and from the number of mills in line 36. It is also not added into the volume on line 42.
364   IDP   1      204        30                    Required                    Change Harv, Renew appendix
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of schedule E to & Tend E. Also Appendix F of the SFL has to be referenced here.
365   IDP   1      204        38, 39                Required                    The amount committed to the Trus Joist facility is not 873,300 m3. This is the allocated volume from the blocks (based on best estimate) and this needs to be changed to use the 146,000 m3 annual amount (multiplied by 5) from the conditional commitment letter instead. See FMPM page A-115 lines 14-16 which states that approval of a FMP is not an agreement to supply wood to a particular mill. The same alteration applies to page 224, lines 19 and 20.
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend
366   IDP   1      204        42                    Required                    Please remove the word Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & "ministerial" from line 42. Also need to make it clear that the volume numbers in this line are 5 year numbers and not annual.
367   IDP   1      205        2                     Required                    For the sentence starting "The
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend total volume of mill commitments....." - this is not the commitment number and it contradicts page 204 line 42. Please remove this sentence as page 204 line 42 already covers this for mill commitments.
368   MED   1      163        24-27                 Comment                     Kudos of Areas of Operations
                                                                        2.4.2 Selection to the company if this was actually done...if not please reword.
369   MED   1      178                              Suggested
                                            Snag management                     Suggest that Operations
                                                                        2.4.3 Prescriptions forthe Company explains in this section the safety procedures for snags (or the lack of snags) associated with road corridors as discussed between the Company & local MNR i.e. no snags within 20-30 m of the road center line for safety concerns.
370   MED   1      182        1-9                   Suggested                   Suggest that Operations
                                                                        2.4.3 Prescriptions forand #10 be added stating that..."all culverts and cross drains will be maintained on a regular basis to ensure they are in good working order."
371   LOS   6                                       Required
                                            road supp doc                       In
                                                                        Sup Docs the "preventive/mitigative measures" section, you need to describe/detail the preventive and mitigative measures you will be taking and not just refer to the Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings.
372   LOS   MAP                        350556       Required            MAPS An identified bald eagle nest (2005) has not been indicated or buffered near the Caribou Falls bridge crossing. Please include 359192 5568598
373   LOS   1      62         17-21                 Required                    Woodland Caribou
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description are no longer considered to be "locally featured" because they are listed as "threatened" on the SARO list. Therefore caribou should be listed as a "provincially featured" species. Also, as bald eagles are still considered an "Endangered" species they should be listed as a "provincially featured" species.
374   LOS   1      54         35                    Required                    Woodland Caribou
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description is now considered to be a "provincially featured" species.

                                                                                 Where Caribou is referred to as being "locally featured" please change to
                                                                                 "provincially featured". Add bald eagle to provincially featured wildlife
                                                                                 species list.

                                                                                Also, because bald eagle is considered to be provincially featured, please
                                                                                include a description of management techniques under the Featured
375   LOS   1      50         9                      Required                   Species Section
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description (line 18, page 50)
376   CES   1                                        Required           FMP-2 No breakout for Crown Unmanaged? I suspect that this has been rolled into Parks as expressed in FMP-1a. Either report separately or change the header for FMP-2 to 'Crown Parks and Crown Unproductive' to cover off the requirements to report by each land ownership category in FMP-2. You may also want to check any text reporting of these results since parks productive is actually only 51,000 out of the 71,000.
                                                                                Statement indicates that the preferred treatment will be cc harvest-SIP-
                                                                                plant...for the establishment of softwood. This does not match up with
                                                                                CMX-2.01 FMP 10.
377   MED   1      207        20                     Required           2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend
378   MED   1      207        42                     Required                   Page of Harv, 42-44)-208l(lines
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast207 (line Renew & Tend 1-5)Need to better explain what is the preferred treatment as in previous FU.Comment: Aerial seeding on green stone may be an issue for success due to high competition.
379   MED   1      208        26-28                  Required                   PWD of statement does not match FMP10. The statement on page 208 is not realistic. Tending will be required on the majority of these sites to ensure success as indicated in the SGR.
                                                                        2.4.4 ForecasttheHarv, Renew & Tend
                                                                                PJP page 207 & 208 talks about genetically improved seed cross
                                                                                reference this to FMP 25 and there is no relationship with the table and
                                                                                text.
                                                                                Plan needs to define "near future" if its not during this planning term
380   MED   1      207        44                     Required                   remove. Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast ofIf it is there needs to be a linkage with FMP 25.

                                                                                 Some clarification needed on the following.

                                                                                 Slash pile burning will be conducted on deep soil sites this is different
                                                                                 from the past...why?
                                                                                  Does the statement "left on site" mean at road side or within the cutover.

                                                                                Slash pile at road side must be managed in order to decrease the amount
                                                                                of land lost to roads and landings and to address the threat of fire
                                                                                associated with road side slash piles.
381   MED   1      208        39-40                  Required                   If these are not burnt then they
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend must be distributed across the cutover.
                                                                                Renewal support: the statement does not match FMP 10. All UCB is
                                                                                natural...so why collect Ce seed???
382   MED   1      209        16                     Required                   need to explain or remove.
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend
383   MED   1      230        19            2.52     Required                   Remove the reference regarding FOIP reports being completed by licensee. none of the licensee meet the criteria or have been approved by SSM to carry out FOIP inspections.Line 28 remove the sentence starting "with Trust Joist will train .... same reason as above.
                                                                        2.5 Monitoring and Assessment
                                                                                need to reword to reflect the time lines
                                                                                (some operations are 10 days some are 20)
                                                                                direction can be found in the "guidelines for forest industry compliance
                                                                                planning" and the associated enforcement procedures (ENF 22.0.1
                                                                                22.02.01)
384   MED   1      230        26                     Required                   this also applies to page
                                                                        2.5 Monitoring and Assessment 231 line 22-23.
385   MED   1      231                               Required                   Company need to explain
                                                                        2.5 Monitoring and Assessment how start up of an operation will be reported and documented.

                                                                                 The Compliance Plan required major changes. Company has not
                                                                                 followed the "guidelines for forest industry compliance planning" as
                                                                                 identified in part 1 of the guide.
                                                                                 Some of the key points missing background, direction, past present and
                                                                                 future issues not described.
                                                                                 How the Company plans to over come past compliance issues.
386   MED   2                                        Required
                                            #5 Forest Compliance Plan Appendices Please revise using the guide as the template.
387   RCB   1      124        17                     Editorial                   Is the of MAs
                                                                        2.3.4 Analysis reference supposed to be to FMP-12 or FMP-13 in this paragraph. Given the FMP-13 is the comparison table and the statement on lines 23-24 is more correct for FMP-13. Please verify and correct if necessary. Same comment applies to Appendix 8D Page 5.
388   RCB   3      9          6-8                    Required
                                            Appendix 8D                          You
                                                                        Appendices should make mention of mention why there is an increase in PWD over the natural... restoration objective? You don't need to get into a lot of detail, just make the appropriate statement. A similar mention should also be in the main text with the discussion on page 124.
390   RLK   1                               Map      Areas Selected for Harvest Operations
                                       153805550 8.1 Comment            MAPS There appears to be a slight encroachment of a private land into the very south end of Big Sand Lake Conservation Reserve. Please confirm?
391   GLH   1      0          0                      Comment            MAPS On the CD, the PDF of Map 8.1 "Areas Selected for Harvest Operations", is very difficult to open on my computer (512 RAM). The refresh rate in Adobe is very slow. Impossible to print from my computer. My computer is older, so no doubt that is a problem. But wondering if the file size can be reduced without losing resolution?
392   GLH   1      50         10                     Required                    (This is really an
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description editorial) RE: Woodland caribou status: Since the Plan development cycle started, there has been a change in Ontario status for the forest dwelling woodland caribou to "Threatened". Likely the FMP training material stated "locally featured" on a Regional basis when the training was delivered. However since the species is now "Threatened", it is now "provincially featured" as per wildlife policy 6.04.01.
393   GLH   1      51         28                     Required                    RE Description
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Marten and OMA2: Reference is made to an age class threshold of >69 years old. The OMA2 is pre-set to >79. If >69 was in fact used for an approved ecological reason, then please make a slight revsion and add a statement in the text here something to the effect that: The OMA2 model uses >79 years for age of onset for suitability, or >=15 m based on tree age and height. Tree growth height-age relationships on the Kenora unit were examined and it was determined that the larger diameter coarse woody material would have accumulated in the >69 year age class to provide complex 3-dimensional stand structure, to meet the intent of the marten Guide, and this was reviewed and approved by Region, etc, etc. (As an aside, usually the height allowance for 15m usually classifies a significant percentage of the 70-79 year old conifer forest as suitable anyway. In other words, the down-aging in the model usually has little or no effect since height in the model logic makes it an “or” instead of an “and”. A se
394   GLH   1      53         3                      Required           CaribouFig. 20 Ungulate Management Map: The caribou zone does not match the maps in App6C. I believe there are two additional tracts with potential for caribou occupancy in the future (tract I and J, although J is more productive), and a corresponding mosaic block with a timing based upon eligibility, based on the map in App 6C? Current occupancy might be confused with future range occupancy potential? The caribou management zone should include the latter concept. There are allocations and a new road being planned going in there so it should be an A block or open timing type block in the mosaic, (depending on the strategy) and be shown on Fig 20. Please contact GH to discuss if there are interpretation problems.
395   GLH   1      55         16                     Editorial          Caribou Typo: Ontario Forest "Analysis". Should be "Analyst".
396   GLH   1      57         15                     Suggested                   RE Description
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Kestrel: This is a problematic habitat to interpret from SFMM outputs. Suggest in the paragraph you may want to elaborate that in the model it is ranked by feeding habitat (the pre-sapling). However spatially, it nests in larger diameter cavity trees, i.e. old trees. These cavity trees are made available adjacent to open country (pre-sampling) by harvesting. Additionally we provide snags throughout cutovers, thus making cavities available for nesting, and kestrels prefer to nest in cavities exposed to open areas.
398   GLH   1      62         18                     Editorial                   RE Description
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest featured status of woodland caribou: As per earlier comment, the status for "featured" has changed to "provincially featured".
399   GLH   1      63         3                      Editorial                   RE: Caribou nomenclature and status: This comment also refers to page 54-55: The nomenclature for the species and population name can be confusing. So perhaps clear it up once in the text and then you can abbreviate it. Nationally the population listed by COSEWIC as "Threatened" is "Boreal Population of Woodland Caribou". In Ontario the status is provincially "Threatened", and the official common name in the SARO list is "Woodland Caribou - forest dwelling population". The Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Document (draft citing: "Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. 2004. Recovery Strategy for Forest-dwelling Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Ontario. Species at Risk Section, Ontario Parks, Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. XXpp."), is referring to the caribou in the Kenora FMU as "Forest-Dwelling Woodland Caribou". Please make reference once to the official nomenclature, and then I suggest you can say something like: "from hereon in referred to as "caribou" o
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description
400   GLH   1      62         23                     Editorial                   The term "RVTE"
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description has been updated for Ontario terminology. Species are listed on the SARO list (Special at Risk In Ontario). The category “vulnerable” has been replaced with “special concern. “Rare" is a mix of several concepts. Provincial “S-ranks” are ranks for “rare” species, based on occurrence records. S1 are “extremely rare”, S2 are “very rare”, and S3 are “rare to uncommon”. It is OK to group all these as “rare” for your FMP text. Please make the appropriate text revisions.
401   HM    1      192        10-11                  Required                    Reference to the Analysis Result
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend document is incorrect. Please change it to the "Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation".
402   GLH   1      62                                Required                    Missing from the
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description FMP is a list of the species at risk which occur on the Kenora FMU. Please add the complete list of species at risk found on the Kenora FMU either here or in an appendix and referenced here. A list of these species has been prepared and sent to Kenora District. All species could potentially be negatively affected by some kind of operations (e.g. harvest, renewal, tending, road construction, water crossings, aggregates extraction, etc.), although it is highly unlikely. The complete list however provides managers with things to keep an eye out for. You have already stated how some SAR and featured species are being addressed (good). Please also state in the text here that all operations are screened for SAR, and should a SAR occurrence be encountered, appropriate measures will be taken, such as applying a custom AOC, other mitigation measures, or preventative measures. For most of these species there are no AOC manuals, so appropriate management actions would be designed on a case by
403   GLH   1      62                                Required                    RE Description
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Stick Nests: Somewhere in the Text it must state what will be done when stick nests are encountered, either as known mapped values, or sporadically during the course of operations. This management is a challenge in boreal forest operations, so the Plan needs to be clear on what will be done. Direction for AOC’s is given through the forest raptor guide. Residual patches should be used to advantage whenever possible. If encountered though harvesting operations where the Guide’s ACO boundary has been disturbed, then a residual patch should be used to protect it.
405   GLH   1      96         29                     Required                    RE Forest Composition
                                                                        2.3.3 Management Alternatives Objective: I did not see, (unless I missed it), what the management intent was for white pine as a stem component of other forest units. For biodiversity reasons, white pine as a species occurrence in other forest units is important. Is the white pine cut, is it left for seed tree, with or without follow-up tending, or is there a more complex strategy? Please elaborate in the strategies as to what is done.
407   SJD   1      13         44                     Comment                     The FMP
                                                                        2.1 Introduction notes 116 invitations for RSA were sent w/ 28 positive responses. Not all of the establishments invited were on the MTR list of licensed RBT operators but were known to be established tourism operations.Furthermore, April 18, 2005 e-mail (Wilkie to Cameron, MTR) indicated 110 invitations, 25 declaring interest in negotiating.
408   GLH   1      96         29                     Suggested                   RE: Red and white pine
                                                                        2.3.3 Management Alternatives forest unit objectives: There is a 100 year measurable target. FMP-12 lists modeled 20 years increments which are the combined effects of the strategies. Is there a target for the end of the 5 years that this FMP’s performance can be measured against? It would be good to put this in the Plan, e.g. hectares of area planted.
409   SJD   1      14         4                      Comment                     The FMP
                                                                        2.1 Introduction indicates of the 28 RBT operators interested in negotiating an RSA, they were "further refined" and lists only 9 operators as approaching RSA signing. Is it correct that from the 116 invitations, only 9 RSA's will be signed? Text should state this more directly if it is the case.
410   SJD   1      19         21                     Editorial                   "work circle"
                                                                        2.2 MU Description change to "Working Circle"
411   SJD   1      70         32                     Comment                     This entire section makes several
                                                                        2.2.3 Social and Economic Description statements beyond that of an FMP and the expertise of the Planning Team and should likely have references (e.g. The lower Cdn dollar and the US recovery continues to bolster the tourism industry in Kenora but may be slightly offset by declining tourism since Sept 11th)
412   SJD   1      71         42                     Editorial                   change Economic Description
                                                                        2.2.3 Social and "work circle" to "Working Circle"
413   SJD   1      72         15                     Editorial                   Change "the rocks of the Kenora
                                                                        2.2.3 Social and Economic Description Forest are host" to "The geology of the Kenora Forest is host to"
414   IDP   1      23         7, 8                   Required                    Reword "....has
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Descriptiondesignated the islands of Lake of the Woods..." to say "... has designated the majority of the islands of ...."
415   IDP   1      88         12, 13                 Required                    Reword the end of the sentence to state "... roughly coincides with WC 1 and 2."
                                                                        2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning Context
416   SJD   1      77                                Required                    Section is Planning Context
                                                                        2.3.2 Forest Mgmt not reflective of the list of 6 PP and 9 CRs (granted they are not all related to OLL but current wording is not accurate and may lead to confusion)
417   IDP   1      22         11                     Editorial                   Please change
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Descriptionwording on line 11 to Wabaseemoong Independent Nations. Also the same change to page 88, line 11 (binder 1).
418   IDP   1      22         13, 14                 Required                    Need to change
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description the wording in the paragraph's last sentence on the commitment to licence to instead say "the commitment to provide the opportunity to harvest".
419   IDP   1      24         22                     Editorial                   According to the
                                                                        2.2.2 Forest Description maps there was harvest on the Aulneau up to 1984-85 and a small amount in 1985-86. Please reword the year(s) to reflect this or just say the mid-1980's. Also the same change is needed for page 25 line 28-29.
420   IDP   1      177        17                     Editorial                   Remove reference to appendix 10.
                                                                        2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
421   IDP   1      194, 195   42                     Required                    Page of Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast194 line 42, page 195 lines 1 and 23 refer to FMP-18b and this reference needs to be corrected or the table added.
422   IDP   1      200        24                     Required                    Composite needs to be added
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend to the list of products as per table FMP-21.
423   IDP   1      200        29, 30                 Comment                     The text Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast ofrefers to "red and white pine if utilized". Please explain the wording on "if utilized" as other parts of the plan refer to all volume being utilized.
424   IDP   1      203        4-6                    Required                    This sentence Renew & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, comes from the FMPM but there is no unutilized volume in the table so remove or reword sentence.
425   IDP   1      203        11                     Required                    Change Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of the wording on line 11 to ".... timber volume will be left on site...."
426   IDP   1      204        2, 3                   Editorial                   The 2 of Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast sentences on the average number of fuelwood licences and volume should either be removed or else moved into the fuelwood paragraph at the end of page 203. These sentences appear to be within a paragraph discussing something different from fuelwood.
427   IDP   1      204        3-7                    Required                    Overlapping agreements between the individual and SFL are required first for all types of personal use licences. Line 7 says "may be required". The sentence on lines 6 and 7 should be removed as the company should be the first contact to begin with.
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend
428   IDP   1      203        28, 29                 Required                    This paragraph also needs to
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend specify that overlapping agreements with the SFL for fuelwood are signed by individuals and there are conditions in those. No reference has been made to this and that the company has a role to play here.
429   SJD   1      86         22                     Suggested                   Change sentence to read "However, three of these individuals became either dissatisfied with the process or did not have the resources to continue to participate, and stopped actively attending Planning Team meetings around the time of the second info centre. They were formally asked if they were interested in being removed from the Planning Team membership to which none responded. As such, they remained listed as Planning Team members and continued to receive all related correspondence and materials.
                                                                        2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning Context
430   PMC   1      98         16                     Required                    Please remove the reference
                                                                        2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ of Sust to the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy from the sentence. The Provincial Wood Supply Strategy does not suggest wood supply targets for forest management planning purposes.
431   GLH   1      78         42                     Editorial                   Grammatical: "...preferred
                                                                        2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations by woodland caribou ranging in size to simulate...". Reads a little awkward. Perhaps re-phrase.
432   GLH   1      179        30                     Suggested                   RE moose for Operations
                                                                        2.4.3 Prescriptions habitat residual patches: As worded in this section, I was wondering if you are restricting yourself in the residual dimension requirements? If this is a Planning team decision to keep it within 300-400m, then OK. But there is room if you like to flex the cover to cover distance wider for residual on some landform types that would have naturally burned big and clean. Your decision, based on how you want compliance inspections to interpret natural pattern emulation.
433   GLH   1      182        39                     Editorial                   Typo: "0.3 for Operations
                                                                        2.4.3 Prescriptions m stocking" 30% or 0.3 stocking?
434   PMC   1      116        36                     Required                    Please remove the reference
                                                                        2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ of Sust to the provincial wood supply as a predictor of Kenora Forest wood supply. The provincial wood supply study used the 2001 Kenora forest management plan as the source of information. The Provincial Wood Supply Strategy does not suggest wood supply targets for forest management planning purposes. You could refer to the 2001 Kenora forest management plan for the source of future wood supply information.
435   PMC   1      116        38                     Required                    Please remove the reference
                                                                        2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ of Sust to the provincial wood supply targets. The Provincial Wood Supply Strategy does not suggest wood supply targets for forest management planning purposes. You should reference the 2001 Kenora Forest Management plan as a source of long term wood supply information.
436   PMC   1      138        8                      Required                    Please remove the reference
                                                                        2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ of Sust to the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy. The wood supply strategy does not suggest wood supply targets for forest management planning purposes.
437   PMC   1      156        3                      Required                    Please remove the reference
                                                                        2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ of Sust to the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy. The Provincial Wood Supply Strategy does not suggest wood supply targets for forest management planning purposes. This sentence could properly refer to the short-term wood supply targets of the plan (target 4b).
438   GLH   1      201        22                     Editorial                   Typo: of Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast "he" should be "the".
439   PMC   1      138        15                     Required                    Please remove the phrase "short-term wood supply commitments" and replace with "short-term wood supply targets"
                                                                        2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ of Sust
440   PMC   1                                        Required           FMP-24FMP-24 must be revised to reflect the actual wording of the Minister's wood supply commitments and to add Devlin Timber to the list of mills. Please obtain a copy of the revised table from Ian Pyke or Pat Corbett
441   GLH   1                                        Editorial          FMP-5 Typo in footnote: "Balack-backed"
442   KR    2      2          5                      Required           NDPE The text indicates that “the number and species of snags will be determined during pre-work assessment.” This makes sense but the plan should state clearly what is minimally acceptable under different circumstances. As an example - is 0 trees OK? Some other teams have included a brief methodology of how such a pre-work assessment may be carried out. Please provide more detail as to how this will be done and what criteria and minimal standards will be followed.
443   KR    2      8          33                     Required           NDPE The text indicates that “methodology and techniques are still being developed to analyze and report the various requirements of the NDPE guideline...” To my knowledge there is no such project underway within MNR, Unless this refers to monitoring that the company is doing this paragraph should be removed.
444   KR    2      8          25            Appendix 6B
                                                     Required           NDPE The text indicates that “it is expected that planned clearcuts that do not meet the guideline...targets in this analysis will be supplemented with residual areas making them very close to achieving the required residual landscape pattern.” Please remove the words “it is expected that”. Also please further explain what is meant by “very close”.
445   KR    2      1                        Table 2 and 3
                                                     Required           NDPE I’m somewhat confused by Tables 2 and 3 in appendix 6B. There are many disturbances in Table 2 that have total targets that exceed what is currently mapped that do not appear in Table 3 (e.g. # 17 - 20.6 ha required only 8.5 ha mapped). It would be preferable to have another column with a footnote indicating why these individual disturbances don not require projected residual area. This relates somewhat with alteration #444. Providing such a column would satisfy #444.
446   KR    1      197                               Required           NDPE The text (Individual Tree Retention) describes the requirements of the NDPEG but then simply states that “Trees to be left will be identified during harvest operation.” Please indicate clearly the minimal standards that will be followed and the considerations involved. See alteration # 442.
447   IDP   1      204        36, 37                 Required                    Please remove the sentence starting "All of the mills receiving conifer...." as it is not really necessary to say this. Same alteration has to be done for page 224, lines 17, 18.
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend
448   GLH   2                                        Suggested          NDPE App 6B Map: Disturbances 2001 With Harvest: It is difficult to see the residual patterns at the scale of this map. A suggestion is to print the north and the south half of the unit on two separate maps.
449   GLH   2      3                                 Required                    App
                                                                        Appendices 6C, Ungulate management Strategy, Fig 1 Ungulate Zone map. Again a problem (some as Main Text Fig 20), with the caribou zone southern boundary, relative to caribou range map: "KFU Harvest Eligibility Dates Caribou Range 2006-2026". Please revise Fig 1 to include tracts I and J (Werner Lake Area and East of Routine Lake. If problems with interpretation, please contact GH to discuss.
450   GLH   2      7                                 Required                    App
                                                                        Appendices 6C: Fig 2 Area of assessment map for caribou: The legend in currently not read-able in its reduced size. Please enlarge the map and the legend.
451   IDP   1      205        7-12                   Required                    Need of Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecastto add wording to the text on wood going to mills not recorded in the FMP such as "the priority is to provide wood to SFL appendix E and F mills."
452   IDP   1      205        19, 20                 Required                    The outbreak of jack pine budworm south of the Kenora forest and edging into the forest should be mentioned here.
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend
453   IDP   1      206        5                      Editorial                   The map number needs Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew &to be corrected and the operational scale maps in appendix 9 should be referenced as well.
454   IDP   1      206        32                     Suggested                   Suggest rewording "will be implemented" as this would mean that all 4863 hectares will be site prepared.
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew & Tend
455   IDP   1      207, 208   12, 13                 Comment                     Since of other forest & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast theHarv, Renewunits receiving treatments in FMP-25 are discussed on pages 207 and 208, the UCB forest unit should be discussed as well.
456   GLH   2                                        Required
                                            Appendix 6C                          App Marten Habitat Area
                                                                        Wildlife/Core6C Marten Analysis: No problem with the strategic decisions or the explanation in the text. Good job. However the documentation needs some revisions. Please add the 10% Goal on page 3 alongside the 20% goal. Maps: The 81/2 x 11 maps are a little too small, and the legends unreadable. All the maps should have the black line boundaries for water turned off when reduced on 8 1/2 x 11. The 8 1/2 x 11 maps, (when enlarged and refined), are good. However we need at least one large fold out unit map showing: current suitability, or suitability at year 5, or suitability at year 20 (your choice), with the 5 year harvest allocations overlain transparently, and outlines of the selected cores with some indication of their deferral vintage. Stats tables: Under the Good and Fair columns, please replace the % value with the actual hectares. The good/fair total percentage column is OK. Suggest adding a column for total hectares of good+fair. Not sure what "age OK" column is? Please define in a footnote.
458   LDM   1      77                                Suggested                   Delete reference to Context
                                                                        2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning DLUGs - they do not provide area-specific land use and resource management direction. This has been replaced by the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas.



                                                                                 The following needs to be added to the right hand column:

                                                                                 G2592 - "no new roads"

                                                                                 G2603 - "only secondary roads and tertiary roads will be permitted"

                                                                                 G2610 - "commercial timber harvest not permitted. No roads are
                                                                                 permitted"

                                                                                G2550 - "Areas of concern to be established where appropriate.
                                                                                Resource access roads will be constructed as required in accordance
                                                                                with existing policy and in a manner which minimizes impact on
459   LDM   1                                        Required           FMP-7 recreational resources. Resulting road use will be controlled"
461   IDP   1      208        9                      Required                   Add objectives Renew 6 Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, # 3 and & to the list. Objective # 3 has the PRW target.
462   IDP   1      208        12                     Editorial                  Isn't the Harv, Renew & Tend
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast ofharvest level of SBL 90 hectares?
464   IDP   1      209        4-9                    Editorial                  These 2 Harv, Renew almost
                                                                        2.4.4 Forecast of sentences are& Tend exactly the same. Please try to combine them.
466   IDP   MAPS                       39 555, 40 554Required           MAPS Map 39 555 is missing the location of the Minnesabik tree improvement area. Map 40 554 is missing the location of the Fifth Creek tree improvement area. Also needs to be added to map legend. Any other areas of tree improvement operations will need to be on the operational maps as per FMPM.
467   IDP   1      211        6, 7                   Required                   Need to reword sentence starting with "All primary and secondary....". There are no new primary roads in the plan and it appears the intent would be to say this is done for new secondary roads.
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads
468   IDP   1      211        23, 24                 Required                   Remove reference to access into surplus areas as not applicable.
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads
469   IDP   1      212        16                     Required                   Werner Road
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads will have to be discussed here as well under travel restrictions.
470   IDP   1      212        21-28                  Required                   Tertiary road
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads abandonment needs to be discussed here as well.
471   IDP   1      216        16, 17                 Editorial                  The Roads
                                                                        2.4.5 Accessappendix number needs to be corrected and supp doc M is the roads documentation rather than the FMP summary.
472   IDP   1      216        24-37                  Required                   Please state
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads in this paragraph that all bridges (temporary and permanent) will be part of the signed MOU for bridges. Also state that "The company will obtain approval from the MNR regional engineer for all bridges (temporary and permanent) prior to their installation."
473   IDP   1      216        24-37                  Required                   This Roads
                                                                        2.4.5 Access section must state that all secondary road water crossings will be installed with culverts or bridges sized for the 1:25 year (Q25) flood event.
474   IDP   1      217        33                     Required                   Need to state
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads that all tertiary road water crossings will be installed with culverts or bridges sized for the 1:10 year (Q10) flood event.
475   IDP   1      217        16                     Required                   Please state
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads in this section that all bridges (temporary and permanent) for tertiary roads will be part of the signed MOU for bridges. Also state that "The company will obtain approval from the MNR regional engineer for all bridges (temporary and permanent) prior to their installation."
476   IDP   1      218        14                     Comment                    Please clarify
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads what "identified" means. Is it saying that the same measures will be applied to a trail that is identified during plan implementation? Same comment for page 216, line 43.
477   IDP   1      219                               Editorial                  Where Trilake
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads Road is mentioned on page 219, recommend referring to this as "Trilake/ Pipestone Road".
478   IDP   1      220        1                      Editorial                  Typo in the
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roadssection number, should be 2.4.5.5. This is also in the table of contents.
479   IDP   1      220                               Required                   Abandonment
                                                                        2.4.5 Access Roads of tertiary roads must be discussed in this section as this is presented in the road strategy map.
480   IDP   1                                        Comment            FMP-25The SPU forest unit has no natural regeneration forecast but there are SGRs for SPU natural regeneration. Also there is no artificial regeneration for UCB forest unit?
481   IDP   MAPS                       44 545        Comment            MAPS For the southern end of contingency block 683, consider adding an AOC reserve for the other piece of patent land.
482   IDP   6                                        TVt and map
                                             AOC for Required                   Block
                                                                        AOC Sup Doc493 is not listed under AOC TVt and doesn't appear to be in other TV category AOCs. As agreed with property owners, there should at a minimum be the timing restriction on weekend hauling in the summers. This will also need to appear as modified operations on the operations maps. Blocks 492 and 494 are listed.
483   IDP   1                                        Editorial          FMP-26FMP-26 has 2 road names that are different from the names in the road strategy map. Isinglass 577 and Denmark 579 should be listed as such in FMP-26 to match the map.
484   IDP   2                                Map 8.1Editorial           MAPS Map 8.1 has a few road names missing from it, such as Caution Lake Road. Also for the label for Pipestone road, recommend referring to this as "Trilake/ Pipestone Road".
485   IDP   1                                        Editorial          FMP-26For Trilake Road, recommend referring to this as "Trilake/ Pipestone Road".
486   IDP   1      10                                Editorial                  List and Contents
                                                                        1.0 Approval of supplementary documentation - Values map 4.3 should be renamed in the listing on page 10 to land values as pits and quarries are not on there. Also, map 3, the MU map is in the binder after the values maps so it should be listed in this supp doc listing also.
487   SJD   1      135        15                     Suggested                  The strategy
                                                                        2.3.4 Analysis of MAsof allocating smaller blocks near First Nation communities should be mentioned in the assessment of objective 1 achievement.
488   SJD   1      137        6                      Suggested                  The strategy
                                                                        2.3.4 Analysis of MAsof incorporating traditional ecological knowledge should be mentioned in objective 3 achievement.
489   SJD   1      137        27                     Suggested                  The strategy
                                                                        2.3.4 Analysis of MAs/ target of 3750 m3 of fuelwood should be mentioned in the objective 4 achievement
490   SJD   1      175        34                     Comment                    The FMP
                                                                        2.6 Documentationnotes 116 invitations for RSA were sent w/ 28 positive responses. April 18, 2005 e-mail (Wilkie to Cameron, MTR) indicated 110 invitations, 25 declaring interest in negotiating.
492   SJD   2                                        Required
                                             Appendix 2                         Include DRAFT SEV Briefing as provided.
                                                                        Appendices
494   SJD   4      1          25                      G
                                             Sup DocComment             Sup DocsIndication if the Wabaseemoong values have been included (and how) should be made in this section of text and on the appropriate values maps.
495   SJD   4      1          41                      G
                                             Sup DocRequired            Sup DocsChange text from "government to government negotiations must yield solutions to resolve these issues" to "Discussions and negotiations between all parties will be required to resolve these issues."
496   SJD   4      2          9                       G
                                             Sup DocRequired            Sup Docsremove wording "primarily for moose"
497   SJD   4      2          10                      G
                                             Sup DocRequired            Sup DocsChange to read "to renew forests to younger age classes for the benefit of wildlife, forestry and fire have been identified as available tools."
498   SJD   4      2          24                      G
                                             Sup DocRequired            Sup Docschange text from "booming is not allowed" to "booming is not feasible"
499   SJD   4      2          24                      G
                                             Sup DocRequired            Sup Docsindicate in text that an over water ice road option has been selected over a barging option
500   SJD   4      3          18                      G
                                             Sup DocRequired                    Text
                                                                        Sup Docs is beating around the bush. If you are going to indicate that crossing reserve land is an issue then you need to say why it is an issue.
501   SJD   4      3          8                       G
                                             Sup DocComment                     Too
                                                                        Sup Docs many points in this paragraph. Each individual issue should be broken out and discussed separately.
502   SJD   4                                         H
                                             Sup DocRequired            Sup DocsIncluded revised LCC statement of agreement/disagreement with FMP as amended and approved by LCC (to be provided by S. Duda) and include summary of LCC activities as developed and provided by LCC.
503   SJD   4      2          2                       G
                                             Sup DocRequired            Sup DocsFrom PT-18 approved meeting minutes it was agreed "Regarding an interim Fire Strategy for the Aulneau Peninsula, Steve indicated that a 'Fire Priority' be set for the area. As well, in general, priority areas should be identified across the entire SFL for modified fire protection." Appropriate reflective text should be included.
504   SJD   1      177        1                      Required                   From PT-18 approved meeting minutes it was agreed "Regarding an interim Fire Strategy for the Aulneau Peninsula, Steve indicated that a 'Fire Priority' be set for the area. As well, in general, priority areas should be identified across the entire SFL for modified fire protection." Appropriate reflective text should be included.
                                                                        2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations
505   SJD   6                                        Required                   From
                                                                        AOC Sup DocPT-20 approved meeting minutes it was agreed that for RSA's, "Within the FMP, AOC prescriptions associated with RSA agreements/negotiations, will include a one page map and a one page summary description for each AOC in addition to noting the origin of the prescription in the appropriate AOC supp docs." This has not been included in the FMP submission.
506   SJD   6                                         O
                                             Sup DocComment             Sup DocsBlocks 458 (156ha) and 586 (120 ha) are "near" the Dalles and Whitefish Bay First Nations, respectively. These blocks may be perceived as not being consistent with the strategy to "allocate smaller blocks near communities."
507   GLH   2      15         36             App 8D Editorial                   App
                                                                        Appendices 8D: Appears to be a typo (?) in reference here to SFMM graphs for wildlife indicators in App 8H, but I believe you have them here in 8D? 8H does not have any wildlife graphs.
508   GLH   5                                App M Required                     Caribou
                                                                        Road Sup Doc and Roads Management: There is nothing stated in the draft as to what the roads management strategy will be in caribou country relative to what the Guide recommends. Blocks/tracts I and J (Werner Lake Area and East of Routine Lake) are in the caribou zone and beginning to be accessed. It is expected the tertiary and secondary roads will be active in there for a while. Please state what is expected to occur to those roads, including any plans for rehabbing them into forest (e.g. tertiary road rehab, some secondary roads, removal of water crossings or not, etc.) If the strategy is not yet figured out, we need to know that too. Please contact GH for discussion as to text requirements.
509   JBA   MAPS                       34550         Required           MAPS Labeling on all maps needs to be looked at to prevent overlapping. i.e. block 490 label and AOC identifier are not legible.
510   JBA   MAPS                       355470        Required           MAPS Block 504 no AOC is mapped on permanent stream. Also legend feature, line type and color for Stream/River vs intermittent differs from the map. (Legend sold blue, map has dotted blue line). Intermittent stream feature in legend is very similar to stand boundaries, needs to be improved.Legend, Depletion type Modified (timing /roads) vs Park /Conservation Reserve are also very similar and need to be improved.
511   IDP   1      177        43, 44                 Comment                    The outbreak Operations
                                                                        2.4.3 Prescriptions forof jack pine budworm south of the Kenora forest and edging into the forest should be mentioned here.
512   LOS   4                                        Required
                                             Feature Value map          MAPS The values maps need to include updated NDD data. There are several sensitive nest locations that were found this past winter that do not show up on the Feature Values Map
513   LOS   MAPS                       390555        Comment            MAPS There are several blocks that have been indicated as harvested that will not be harvested this year. This will need to be addressed in the AWS.
514   LOS   MAPS                       390558        Required           MAPS Missing BE nest on SW end of Fletcher Lake...will impact renewal/maintenance block
515   LOS   MAP                        390553        Required           MAPS Please indicate exact nest location when the nest impacts either block harvest, road construction or renewal/maintenance. (block 455)
                                                                                operational maps
                                                                                block 415, two BE nests not buffered for, both on south end of block, would
                                                                                also impact on maintenance/renewal block 38.
                                                                                block 419, BE nest on Green Island, may impact block depending on line
516   LOS   MAP                        380555        Required           MAPS of site.
517   LOS   MAPS                       380554        Required           Values No block number on block south west of block 439.
518   LOS   MAP                        380553        Required           Values BE nest north of RW track may impact road corridor required to access blocks 444 and 445.
519   LOS   MAPS                       380553        Comment            Values Block 442, why does the same BE nest have 2 separate codes? N 3840_5380 and N 3851_5379?
520   LOS   MAPS                       380550        Comment            MAPS blocks 135 and 136 not yet harvested but indicated that they have been
521   LOS   MAPS                       370555        Required           MAPS Some maps have blocks labeled twice (e.g.. block 76). Please fix to limit confusion on maps.
522   LOS   MAPS                       370555        Required           MAPS Some blocks are not labeled completely (cut-off at the edge of map). Please ensure that all blocks are labeled fully on each basemap. (e.g.. block SE of basemap 370555)
523   LOS   MAPS                       370553        Required           Values BE nest not buffered for, SW corner of basemap for maintenance/renewal block.
524   LOS   1                                        Required           Values All nests that are not currently accounted for on values maps will require the appropriate text in supp doc, FMP 17 and AOC prescriptions.
525   LOS   MAPS                       360555        Required           Values block 359....N end of block requires a water quality buffer. BE nest S of block not buffered for.
526   LOS   MAPS                       360554        Required           MAPS all block labeled twice. Please fix.
527   LOS   MAPS                       360553        Comment            MAPS is cut block NW of block 343 considered block 343 or another separate block?
528   LOS   MAPS                                     Required           Values All crossings within cut blocks must be indicated on maps with AOC ID.
529   JBA   6      1                   35550WQcl     Required           MAPS As described in the AOC identifier WQcl the reserve starting at the high water mark as determined by the presence of woody vegetation including alder and willow, according to slope.AOC's on the map show buffering from the centre of the stream/river. Although this buffering technique allows for mapping ease operations should be reflective of the text.Also in the description in Part 2-prescription (wqcl). "The actual reserve width will be as mapped". This should not read "as mapped" Remove this line.
530   JBA   MAPS                       345510        Required           MAPS Remove secondary road corridor in the NE portion of block 189 north of water crossing AOC, as the bridge is already removed.
531   JBA   MAPS                       345520        Required           MAPS Where to access block 492, AOC is needed.BHr (AOC) identifier not listed for description of value.
532   LOS   MAPS                       340547        Required           MAPS block not labeled N of block 498
533   LOS   MAPS                       350551        Required           Values BE nest not accounted for in the building of road to block 493. Based on the map, the road will go right through the nest area.
534   JBA   MAPS                       355530        Required           MAPS How to access block 337, 336, 335. Where is the crossing location between block 336 and 337.
535   JBA   MAPS                       345540        Required           MAPS Some harvest blocks that take up more than one basemap do not have labels for block numbers. Also when comparing basemaps there seems to be scale differences.
536   LOS   MAPS                       350554        Required           MAPS block to the N of block 329 not labeled.
537   LOS   4                          350554        Required           Values block 331, N-3513_5414 does not appear on values map and needs to be accounted for.

                                                                                 Block 331 on the North east side has a no cut reserve which joins
                                                                                 adjacent block boundary. How to harvest area isolated from the block.

                                                                               Band of hatching "Depletion type modified" (timing/roads) across entire
538   JBA   MAPS                       355540        Comment            MAPS basemap, printing error.
539   JBA   MAPS                       355580        Comment            MAPS red hatch looks like potential tertiary water crossing through entire base map (printing error) without black border like in the legend.
540   LOS   MAPS                       430546        Required           Values No BE buffer at the N end of Flint Lake
541   JBA   MAPS                       365530        Suggested          MAPS Timing restriction for block 342 and 343
542   LOS   MAPS                                     Required           Values Block 601...please address BE nest (how far is block from nest...400m???)

                                                                                 Block 428, north portion across from wetland how to access.
                                                                                 Also on basemap 385530 how to access block 442 (Railway crossing)
543   JBA   MAPS                       375540        Comment            MAPS
544   LOS   MAPS                                     Required           Values   Please indicate all crossing AOC's on map in renewal/maintenance blocks.
545   JBA   MAPS                       385540        Required           MAPS     Block near little sand lake (southwest corner) that has no block number
546   LOS   MAPS                       440547        Required           Values   Missing BE buffer on maintenance/renewal block (Atikwa River NE of Eliza lk.)
547   LOS   MAPS                       450545        Required           Values   Osprey nest not indicated/buffered for in maintenance/renewal block 306 (N of Allan Lk.)
548   LOS   MAPS                       450546        Required           Values   Missing BE nest on E of Shingwak lk, N of block 601. Will impact block harvest.
549   JBA   MAPS                       385560        Required           MAPS     water crossing to block to access renewal/maintain blocks. Three crossings not identified west of block 413.Basemap 395560, 395570 and 385570 have water crossings not identified.
550   LOS   MAPS                       400551        Required           Values   Heronry not buffered which will impact almost the entire block 472.
551   JBA   MAPS                       425440        Required           MAPS     block 215 ?? no depletion type or boundary
552   LOS   MAPS                       410551        Required           Values   BE nest not buffered in maintenance/renewal block 125.
553   JBA   MAPS                       415470        Suggested          MAPS     hatching across centre of map, patent land (printing error)
554   LOS   MAPS                       410553        Required           Values   creek AOC needed on NE side of block 467
555   LOS   MAPS                       420544        Required           Values   BE nest not buffered for in block 174 (maintenance/renewal)
556   LOS   MAPS                       420547        Comment            Values   BE N6- 4206_4746...how large of an area was buffered....a minimum of 400m???
                                                                                 Poplar narrows on the Winnipeg river has a blue line (river/stream)
                                                                                 across it. (mapping error)

                                                                               Also basemap 415520 crystal bay on Silver Lake is not colored properly
557   JBA   MAPS                       355550       Required            MAPS should be cold water fishery.
558   LOS   5                                       Required
                                            Jadel creek rd.                    Please be consistent with respect to the distance from the road to the scoot river nesting site. In some cases it is referred to as 70m from center line and in other areas it state 50 m.
                                                                        Sup Docs
559   LOS   6                                       Required
                                            Jadel Creek                        Road
                                                                        AOC Sup Docprescriptions require specific conditions for each road. Cannot just state " will follow the guidelines". Please specify and detail conditions for each Primary/secondary road locations.
560   LEH   4      1          15                     G
                                            Sup DocRequired                    Global search and change Wabaseemoong First Nations to "Wabaseemoong Independent Nations"
                                                                        Sup Docs
561   LEH   4      2          16                     G
                                            Sup DocRequired                    Additional text on Aulneau First Nation consultation process to be inserted. Text to be supplied by Leo Heyens after confirmation with AKRC and Bimose Tribal Council
                                                                        Sup Docs
562   IDP   6                                        N
                                            Sup DocRequired                    For listing of BH and BHr, the BHr should also
                                                                        AOC Sup Doc
                                                     Preliminary List of Required Alterations - Kenora Forest
                                                           2006-2026 Kenora Forest Management Plan
ID     Reviewer   Binder   Page #   Line #   Other     Topic                       Details


      6 CES       1        II                          1.0 Approval and Contents   Approval by must be specific to the RD's approval.
     10 CES       1        10                          1.0 Approval and Contents   Map 4.6 should be listed in the listing of values maps.
     70 HM        1        IV                          1.0 Approval and Contents   FMP-18b is missing from both the appendix and Tab FMP-18. You need to describe each allocation with clearcut area >260 ha. Each
                                                                                   block has individual characteristics that lead it to being harvested in a cut >260 ha. The Declaration Order regarding MNR's Class EA
                                                                                   approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands (T&C 15(d)) allows blocks >260 ha, provided there is rationale for each block. Each
                                                                                   block must have a silvicultural and/or biological rationale described somewhere in the plan.
 135 IDP          1        II                          1.0 Approval and Contents   As per figure A-6, page A-181 in FMPM, please add name of plan author's organization. For consistency with the SFL document,
                                                                                   company name should be "Weyerhaeuser Company Limited - Trus Joist, Kenora Operations". This goes between lines with MNR
                                                                                   district/ region and the 20 year period.
 600   IDP        1        II                          1.0 Approval and Contents   In the certification statement, please remove the wording on road access planning so that it matches the 1996 FMPM.
 136   IDP        1        II                          1.0 Approval and Contents   In addition to alteration # 6, the words "approved by" must be moved to be beside the regional director's name as per FMPM.
 138   IDP        1        VI       5, 7               1.0 Approval and Contents   Identify Matt and Steve as planning team co-chairs in listing of planning team members.
 594   IDP        1        VI                          1.0 Approval and Contents   Add Abraham Drost (previous advisor) and Peter Hinz to list of advisors.
 142   IDP        1        VIII     12-13              1.0 Approval and Contents   For consistency with the SFL document, company name should be initially referred to as "Weyerhaeuser Company Limited - Trus Joist,
                                                                                   Kenora Operations" and then state the wording already there that "Trus Joist" or "the company" will be used.
 219 CDC          1        V                           1.0 Approval and Contents   SGR exceptions are identical to Trout Lake Forest FMP, this does not match what this plan shows on pg 108; revise to correctly show
                                                                                   exceptions in this plan; also labeled as '5', appears should be '3'; also roads section 1.2 is not required, however, plans have been
                                                                                   including it due to concerns with roads where not permitted; refers to roads in MAFAs, however, AOC# not identified; no requirement to
                                                                                   show 'location' for this, just where documentation is located; AOC planning is not organized by 'nest #' but by AOC #; revise i.e. Road
                                                                                   construction is proposed in HDBZ of osprey nest AOCs ____ which is not permitted by the ..., the tertiary zone of sensitive nests
                                                                                   AOCs____ which is not permitted by the Guide, and in MAFA AOCs____ which is not permitted by...However...separately; (leave out all
                                                                                   tertiary roads...) Documentation related...
 220 CDC          1        III                         1.0 Approval and Contents   osprey exception incorrectly has ACTIVITY; renewal is not exception, individual silviculture treatments are exception & needs to be
                                                                                   identified; no requirement to show location (BM, block #, nest #); as per FMPM pg A-91 lines 9-16, state what exception is/where
                                                                                   documented in plan; location applies to planned clearcuts only as per FMPM pg A-93 lines 16-20; covered in detail at FMP training i.e.
                                                                                   Exception to Management Guidelines & Recommendations for Osprey in Ontario, 1983 for clearcut harvesting & mechanical SIP in
                                                                                   HDBZ & tree planting during nesting season in AOC ONh (4 nests? no listing in sup doc, pg iii does not match sup doc) & one nest each
                                                                                   for AOCs ON1, ON2; & tree planting during nesting season in AOC ONr (___ nests); tending is listed on this page but it IS NOT shown
                                                                                   as exception in sup doc
 582 IDP          1        V                           1.0 Approval and Contents   Must add ES 11 to ES 12 in SGR exceptions for shallow soils.
 170 IDP          1        11       24                 2.1 Introduction            Please add wording to end of the sentence on wood going to other mills in the region such as "... but the priority is to provide wood to
                                                                                   SFL appendix E and F mills."
 172 IDP          1        12       32                 2.1 Introduction            The number of objectives in this FMP is 8, not 10. Please change.
 173 IDP          1        13       27-29              2.1 Introduction            For sentence starting "This plan follows the..." please change to "This 2006 plan follows...." for clarity. Also the date of approval by the
                                                                                   regional director needs to be changed to February 5, 2001.
 177 IDP          1        15       18                 2.2.1 Administration        Change ACI Whiskey Jack forest to just Whiskey Jack forest or Whiskey Jack forest managed by ACI.
 178 IDP          1        16       1                  2.2.1 Administration        Need to change August 2002 to July 2002 or simply make it 2002. Also need to mention that an annual MOU for Trus Joist conducting
                                                                                   silviculture operations was in place since approximately 1999.
 180 IDP          1        16       9, 10              2.2.1 Administration        Please change the wording on First Nation communities holding FRL's to holding harvest allocations. As with any operator, they may
                                                                                   not necessarily hold a FRL at all times nor be conducting forest operations at all times.
 181 IDP          1        16       12, 13             2.2.1 Administration        Need to add that harvest operations are also carried out under the SFL with harvest approvals issued directly to the SFL holder.
  18 CES          1        48       29                 2.2.2 Forest Description    Discussion on FMP-4a missing? If this is covered elsewhere a reference should be noted in this section (current forest condition).




                                                                                              Page 3                                                                                                                              List of Required Alterations
ID     Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other   Topic                      Details


     20 CES       1          62       23               2.2.2 Forest Description   Note terminology needs to change (RVTE), and note that you have specific species that need to be covered as they occur on the forest
                                                                                  and could be impacted by OPS. Regional Species at Risk Biologist (Jenn/Hilary) will get this information to District Biologist to assist in
                                                                                  wording.
     73 HM        1          27-30                     2.2.2 Forest Description   Please discuss management implications of geology and soils on model assumptions / strategies / decisions etc. as per FMPM A-16 line
                                                                                  6-7.
  78 HM           1          61       5-8              2.2.2 Forest Description   Please change the previous 10 year period to read 1991-2001 as per footnote in FMP-6.
 149 CDC          1          30       5                2.2.2 Forest Description   re 'based on the interpretive guide'; this is technically incorrect (so have shown as 'required alteration') because Book II is PART OF the
                                                                                  guide; the guide has 3 Books, the guide is not based on Book II); it appears this plan would have used Books I & II of this guide

 150 CDC          1          62       29               2.2.2 Forest Description   re 'Any exceptions to the guidelines will be clearly identified with a monitoring plan as per planning manual directives' needs to be
                                                                                  removed; the plan does not identify any exceptions to the eagle Guide & therefore previous sentence 'will ensure their protection by
                                                                                  development of appropriate AOC prescriptions' is what is relevant to this plan
 151 CDC          1          63       27               2.2.2 Forest Description   re 'The guidelines for protecting wild rice areas prescribe no-cut buffers'; reviewer is not aware of any 'guideline' for dealing with wild
                                                                                  rice, this is why AOC prescriptions for this value are filled out in Part III 'no implementation manual'; this value may be addressed the
                                                                                  same as fisheries/water quality, but there is no forest management guide that addresses it; please discuss with reviewer to ensure what
                                                                                  is meant is understood & then clarified
 189 IDP          1          38       27               2.2.2 Forest Description   Need to reword sentence for the jack pine WG as now the 21-40 year age class has the most area of the jack pine age classes.
 199 IDP          1          51       14, 15           2.2.2 Forest Description   The sentence starting "These areas were not deferred...." that refers to the 2001 FMP is incorrect. The areas were deferred. Please
                                                                                  correct or remove sentence. Not exactly sure of the purpose for these 2 sentences discussing the 2001 FMP marten cores.

 201 IDP          1          33       30-34            2.2.2 Forest Description   As per FMPM page A-17, line 38 and 39, this section of the plan needs to discuss the reliability of the forecasts.
 205 IDP          1          62       27-29            2.2.2 Forest Description   Please reword this sentence around who is ensuring the eagles' protection as the SFL now also has a responsibility to develop
                                                                                  appropriate AOCs when writing the plan.
 207 IDP          1          66       15, 16           2.2.2 Forest Description   Please change end of sentence to say "... the shelterwood system for the white pine shelterwood forest unit."
 313 HM           1          24       3-7              2.2.2 Forest Description   There are references to both FU and WG in the text and this is confusing. Please adjust text to correct these inconsistencies. And
                                                                                  since this is the first time FU is referenced, you will need to provide a definition or reference the section of the plan where this might be
                                                                                  found.
 357 LOS          1          63       8                2.2.2 Forest Description   Change sentence on lines 7-8 to read " Six caribou were captured and 3 cows were fitted with radio collars in 1998".
                                                                                  Add " During the winter of 1998/1999, one of the collared caribou died as a result of wolf predation".
 358 LOS          1          63       8                2.2.2 Forest Description   Also add " Two additional collars were fitted to cow caribou in February 2000".
 373 LOS          1          62       17-21            2.2.2 Forest Description   Woodland Caribou are no longer considered to be "locally featured" because they are listed as "threatened" on the SARO list. Therefore
                                                                                  caribou should be listed as a "provincially featured" species.
                                                                                  Also, as bald eagles are still considered an "Endangered" species they should be listed as a "provincially featured" species.
 374 LOS          1          54       35               2.2.2 Forest Description   Woodland Caribou is now considered to be a "provincially featured" species.
 375 LOS          1          50       9                2.2.2 Forest Description   Where Caribou is referred to as being "locally featured" please change to "provincially featured". Add bald eagle to provincially featured
                                                                                  wildlife species list.

                                                                                  Also, because bald eagle is considered to be provincially featured, please include a description of management techniques under the
                                                                                  Featured Species Section (line 18, page 50)
 392 GLH          1          50       10               2.2.2 Forest Description   (This is really an editorial) RE: Woodland caribou status: Since the Plan development cycle started, there has been a change in
                                                                                  Ontario status for the forest dwelling woodland caribou to "Threatened". Likely the FMP training material stated "locally featured" on a
                                                                                  Regional basis when the training was delivered. However since the species is now "Threatened", it is now "provincially featured" as per
                                                                                  wildlife policy 6.04.01.




                                                                                             Page 4                                                                                                                               List of Required Alterations
ID     Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other   Topic                           Details


 393 GLH          1          51       28               2.2.2 Forest Description        RE Marten and OMA2: Reference is made to an age class threshold of >69 years old. The OMA2 is pre-set to >79. If >69 was in fact
                                                                                       used for an approved ecological reason, then please make a slight revsion and add a statement in the text here something to the effect
                                                                                       that: The OMA2 model uses >79 years for age of onset for suitability, or >=15 m based on tree age and height. Tree growth height-
                                                                                       age relationships on the Kenora unit were examined and it was determined that the larger diameter coarse woody material would have
                                                                                       accumulated in the >69 year age class to provide complex 3-dimensional stand structure, to meet the intent of the marten Guide, and
                                                                                       this was reviewed and approved by Region, etc, etc. (As an aside, usually the height allowance for 15m usually classifies a significant
                                                                                       percentage of the 70-79 year old conifer forest as suitable anyway. In other words, the down-aging in the model usually has little or no
                                                                                       effect since height in the model logic makes it an “or” instead of an “and”. A sensitivity analysis on the classified data could confirm if
                                                                                       >69 had any effect).
 402 GLH          1          62                        2.2.2 Forest Description        Missing from the FMP is a list of the species at risk which occur on the Kenora FMU. Please add the complete list of species at risk
                                                                                       found on the Kenora FMU either here or in an appendix and referenced here. A list of these species has been prepared and sent to
                                                                                       Kenora District. All species could potentially be negatively affected by some kind of operations (e.g. harvest, renewal, tending, road
                                                                                       construction, water crossings, aggregates extraction, etc.), although it is highly unlikely. The complete list however provides managers
                                                                                       with things to keep an eye out for. You have already stated how some SAR and featured species are being addressed (good). Please
                                                                                       also state in the text here that all operations are screened for SAR, and should a SAR occurrence be encountered, appropriate
                                                                                       measures will be taken, such as applying a custom AOC, other mitigation measures, or preventative measures. For most of these
                                                                                       species there are no AOC manuals, so appropriate management actions would be designed on a case by case basis.

 403 GLH          1          62                        2.2.2 Forest Description        RE Stick Nests: Somewhere in the Text it must state what will be done when stick nests are encountered, either as known mapped
                                                                                       values, or sporadically during the course of operations. This management is a challenge in boreal forest operations, so the Plan needs
                                                                                       to be clear on what will be done. Direction for AOC’s is given through the forest raptor guide. Residual patches should be used to
                                                                                       advantage whenever possible. If encountered though harvesting operations where the Guide’s ACO boundary has been disturbed, then
                                                                                       a residual patch should be used to protect it.
 414 IDP          1          23       7, 8             2.2.2 Forest Description        Reword "....has designated the islands of Lake of the Woods..." to say "... has designated the majority of the islands of ...."
 418 IDP          1          22       13, 14           2.2.2 Forest Description        Need to change the wording in the paragraph's last sentence on the commitment to licence to instead say "the commitment to provide
                                                                                       the opportunity to harvest".
     23 CES       1          69       40-43            2.2.3 Social and Economic       Required information is missing for the listed small mills. Also, what about the volume utilized, product and agreement for all mills?
                                                       Description
     24 CES       1          70       34               2.2.3 Social and Economic       Some details should be provided regarding these resorts. See FMPM as to expectations. Especially important is the economic
                                                       Description                     importance associated with this very significant industry on the forests
     25 CES       1          71       29-43            2.2.3 Social and Economic       Some details should be provided regarding these non-commercial uses. See FMPM as to expectations. Try to reference some factual
                                                       Description                     user-day expenditure type information, if possible.
     80 HM        1          68       31               2.2.3 Social and Economic       Please include Devlin timber in the industrial profile as the social economic impact modeling was conducting on the assumption that
                                                       Description                     Devlin still has commitments of 11,000 m3 out of the Kenora Forest
 152 CDC          1          68       29               2.2.3 Social and Economic       for industrial uses of the forest FMPM pg A-35 lines 17-18 requires that any timber commitments, including supply agreements from the
                                                       Description                     forest be identified in this section; this section of the plan is missing reference to these requirements
 570 IDP          1                                    2.2.3 Social and Economic       This section will have to include discussion on facility downsizing (Abitibi) as per FMPM page A-36.
                                                       Description
 155 CDC          1          79       43               2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   sup doc B actually does not show implementation manuals (now termed forest management guides) used in preparation of plan as
                                                       of Sust                         required & that sup doc needs revision (see ID#143); also implementation manuals are not part of 'Shoal Lake Watershed Plan' but are
                                                                                       another source of direction so add heading 'Forest Management Guides'; also CLUP Atlas topic & FMP-7 is misplaced (see ID#154)

 430 PMC          1          98       16               2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   Please remove the reference to the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy from the sentence. The Provincial Wood Supply Strategy does
                                                       of Sust                         not suggest wood supply targets for forest management planning purposes.




                                                                                                  Page 5                                                                                                                             List of Required Alterations
ID     Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other   Topic                           Details


 434 PMC          1          116      36               2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   Please remove the reference to the provincial wood supply as a predictor of Kenora Forest wood supply. The provincial wood supply
                                                       of Sust                         study used the 2001 Kenora forest management plan as the source of information. The Provincial Wood Supply Strategy does not
                                                                                       suggest wood supply targets for forest management planning purposes. You could refer to the 2001 Kenora forest management plan
                                                                                       for the source of future wood supply information.
 435 PMC          1          116      38               2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   Please remove the reference to the provincial wood supply targets. The Provincial Wood Supply Strategy does not suggest wood
                                                       of Sust                         supply targets for forest management planning purposes. You should reference the 2001 Kenora Forest Management plan as a source
                                                                                       of long term wood supply information.
 436 PMC          1          138      8                2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   Please remove the reference to the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy. The wood supply strategy does not suggest wood supply targets
                                                       of Sust                         for forest management planning purposes.
 437 PMC          1          156      3                2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   Please remove the reference to the Provincial Wood Supply Strategy. The Provincial Wood Supply Strategy does not suggest wood
                                                       of Sust                         supply targets for forest management planning purposes. This sentence could properly refer to the short-term wood supply targets of the
                                                                                       plan (target 4b).
 439 PMC          1          138      15               2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   Please remove the phrase "short-term wood supply commitments" and replace with "short-term wood supply targets"
                                                       of Sust
 564 LEH          1          78       8                2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   Insert date "June 1998" as part of title for the North Kenora Pilot Project Agreement
                                                       of Sust
 566 LEH          1          78       30               2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   Need to insert some additional text here to provide an update to this Agreement. Suggest the following wording be inserted: The 2006-
                                                       of Sust                         2026 Kenora Forest Management Plan is proposing to access Working Circle #1 via a bridge crossing at Caribou Falls and will therefore
                                                                                       not require a bridge crossing at Sydney/Rowdy Lakes. As such, the provisions of the Agreement will need to be re-examined with
                                                                                       respect to their applicability to the 2006 plan.
 569 LEH          1          88       40               2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ   Need to make reference to Sup Doc G here or probably repeat the text to be inserted on line 17 of Sup Doc G.
                                                       of Sust
     26 CES       1          75       32-41            2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning      Section needs to be updated to tie in the newest strategic document (Our Sustainable Future 2005). SEV BNs need to use Beyond 2000
                                                       Context                         and will need to include the updated informal direction that recognizes Our Sustainable Future (Cathy is leading this)

 112 CES          1          87       32               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning      Discussion is missing on the very low utilization within the working circles or the forest as a whole?. This was identified in the RPFO
                                                       Context                         and IFA and should be noted in this issues section. Note that this will need to be addressed in the associated SupDoc for related to IFA
                                                                                       recommendations.
 153 CDC          1          26       35               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning      further to CES ID#26 reference to 'SEV Briefing Note' needs to be shown after all of the strategic discussion is done, because it needs
                                                       Context                         to be based on Beyond 2000 & updated with Our Sustainable Future; also add reference to the latest strategic direction such as 'The
                                                                                       more recent Beyond 2000 was in place during production of this FMP, until release of the most recent Strategic Direction Our
                                                                                       Sustainable Future in February 2005. Therefore, during production of this plan MNR's Statement of Environmental Values has been
                                                                                       considered and the SEV Briefing Note located in Appendix 2 of this FMP is based on both Beyond 2000 and Our Sustainable Future.';
                                                                                       refer to 15 July 05 forest management branch Advice for Preparation of SEV Briefing Notes for draft 2006 FMPs

 154 CDC          1          78       2                2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning      incorrect that DLUG continues to be relevant in providing area specific land uses & resource management direction; revise by replacing
                                                       Context                         DLUG with CLUP Atlas as covered at FMP training; also pg 80 does correctly refer to Atlas, but this reference to table 7 should be with
                                                                                       this section on pg 77-78 rather than at end under 'Shoal Lake Watershed Plan'; copied from CLUP Atlas itself: 'Crown Land Use Policy
                                                                                       Atlas is the official source of area specific land use policy for Crown lands in a large part of Ontario. The geographic scope of Atlas
                                                                                       includes OLL planning area, plus Manitoulin Island; CLUP Atlas brings together all area specific land use policies for Crown lands into
                                                                                       one source location; all future area specific land use planning for Crown lands will be undertaken as amendments to CLUP Atlas.'


 158 CDC          1          84       17               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning      re sources of issues in terms of reference being 2004 IFA: since final audit report was received in April 2005, question how audit could
                                                       Context                         have been used as sources for issues in terms of reference; also line 36 says 'following is an overview of issues identified in ABOVE
                                                                                       DOCUMENTS' - but is this not just from terms of reference, does not read as if anything is from an audit; also editorial - this page
                                                                                       repeats 3 times that audits are a source of information (lines 10, 17, 32)




                                                                                                  Page 6                                                                                                                          List of Required Alterations
ID     Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #       Other   Topic                        Details


 231 IDP          1          85       4                    2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   Please explain or state that FIM compliance was dealt with. The information is there (e.g. text mentions how it was error checked) but
                                                           Context                      this sentence needs some resolution later on specifically stating that FIM compliance was dealt with.
 260 IDP          1          88       22, 23               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   It should be mentioned that in the 2001 FMP, the Aulneau formed part of the AHA but there were no allocations.
                                                           Context
 262 IDP          1          88       24, 25               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   The EMA designation of the Aulneau is primarily for wildlife. Please include this here and recommend using the wording on page 24.
                                                           Context
 263 IDP          1          88       38-40                2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   It needs to be stated that number of meetings have been held with AKRC about the Aulneau. Also, at some point the Aulneau Advisory
                                                           Context                      committee needs to be mentioned - that they are in place and have held meetings and been informed on the FMP.
 264 IDP          1          89       36, 37               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   Please clarify statement regarding "Development of access to these areas...". It sounds like access to the blowdown and fire areas is
                                                           Context                      happening for this 2006 plan term and that is currently not the case.
 463 IDP          1          88       12, 13               2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   Reword the end of the sentence to state "... roughly coincides with WC 1 and 2."
                                                           Context
 416 SJD          1          77                            2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   Section is not reflective of the list of 6 PP and 9 CRs (granted they are not all related to OLL but current wording is not accurate and
                                                           Context                      may lead to confusion)
     33 CES       1          107      21                   2.3.3 Management             Other guides used to develop prescriptions need to be noted (PR, PW, CE)
                                                           Alternatives
     34 CES       1          108      6                    2.3.3 Management             Table is not consistent with line 27 regarding seeding on ES 16,19,21, or the exceptions page. Also see CDC comments 222 & 219
                                                           Alternatives
     35 CES       1          109      29-38                2.3.3 Management             Text is not consistent with text on page 114 ln 39-41 where 1500 well spaced stems per hectare has been set as the minimum
                                                           Alternatives                 acceptable standard for basic stocking. SGR's should state this.
     37 CES       1          111      27                   2.3.3 Management             SGR 1.01 needs to be removed from the SGR's as you have this covered on SGR footnote 3 and page 113, whereby an appropriate
                                                           Alternatives                 SGR will be selected based on the FU/site type encountered.
     92 HM        1          92       9                    2.3.3 Management             Please correct text as LEAP2 was not used to quantify spatial acceptability.
                                                           Alternatives
 222 CDC          1          108      5                    2.3.3 Management             further to CES ID#34 & see CDC ID#217, 219: exceptions shown do not match SGRs FMP-10 & they do not match exceptions page &
                                                           Alternatives                 page 232; for example FMP-10 pg 9 of 223 SGR 4.03 & 4.04 comments identify NR/exceptions for aerial seeding of PJ inconsistent with
                                                                                        plan text & certification page; plan text on page 108 is identical to Trout Lake FMP but does not match exceptions shown in chart on this
                                                                                        page; in referring to seeding what kind of seeding (aerial, for Pj or ?); revise so matches what is to be IN THIS PLAN & consistent
                                                                                        throughout
 272 IDP          1          108      6                    2.3.3 Management             The listing of ecosites in the table for the seeding lists ES 30 whereas line 29 and page 109, line 5 do not. The intent must have been to
                                                           Alternatives                 not list ES 30. ES 30 is also listed with other ecosites in FMP-10 for SGRs 4.03, 4.04 and 4.05 and should be removed. This relates to
                                                                                        alteration ID # 222.
 267 IDP          1          104      34                   2.3.3 Management             Please change the "regional science advisors" to the singular (one advisor) as really only one science advisor was involved with the
                                                           Alternatives                 forest units for the 2006 plan.
 268 IDP          1          105      5-10                 2.3.3 Management             Since some of the forest units were sorted and based on ecosites as well, the use of ecosites in determining the forest unit needs to be
                                                           Alternatives                 mentioned here.
 269 IDP          1          105      29, 30, 42           2.3.3 Management             Forest units on lines 29, 30 and 42 need to have their composition changed to include "equal to" along with the greater than (as per
                                                           Alternatives                 FMP-8).
 271 IDP          1          108      3                    2.3.3 Management             Change the word guidelines to guides. Also the section and page number reference are incorrect.
                                                           Alternatives
     93 HM        1          112      8                    2.3.3 Management             Please identify in the text or as a footnote to the FMP-10 what "best management practices" will be used to mitigate nutrient loss on ES
                                                           Alternatives                 11 & 12.
 273 IDP          1          110      7-9                  2.3.3 Management             This sentence is saying that at the FTG stage the stand will be assigned management intensity. This decision is supposed to be made
                                                           Alternatives                 starting at the FOP and AWS stage. Please correct or reword sentence to reflect this.
 275 IDP          1          112      15-20                2.3.3 Management             In addition to alteration # 93, this FMP needs to state what will actually be done in this FMP since full-tree logging is CR. It references
                                                           Alternatives                 "other measures (i.e. high flotation equipment)" but needs to specifically state what measures will be used in this FMP and whether that
                                                                                        includes things such as high flotation equipment.
 276 IDP          1          112      29                   2.3.3 Management             Line 29 needs to reference that this document is in appendix 5B. Also on this page please refer to using the best management
                                                           Alternatives                 practices in this document and list them.
 277 IDP          1          112      36                   2.3.3 Management             Line 36 states that best management practices will be followed. It has to be specified which best management practices these are.
                                                           Alternatives
 278 IDP          1          113      26                   2.3.3 Management             Please add to the end of the sentence on line 26 on burn plans, "after plan approval".
                                                           Alternatives




                                                                                                   Page 7                                                                                                                             List of Required Alterations
ID     Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #     Other   Topic                          Details


 279 IDP          1          114      13                 2.3.3 Management               Please change "desired results" to required results.
                                                         Alternatives
 280 IDP          1          114      20, 21             2.3.3 Management               Add to the end of the sentence starting with " The treatments will be deemed successful..." that it is also in accordance with the percent
                                                         Alternatives                   maximum or minimum of certain species in the regeneration standards (e.g. Max Po, Bw = 20%).
 405 GLH          1          96       29                 2.3.3 Management               RE Forest Composition Objective: I did not see, (unless I missed it), what the management intent was for white pine as a stem
                                                         Alternatives                   component of other forest units. For biodiversity reasons, white pine as a species occurrence in other forest units is important. Is the
                                                                                        white pine cut, is it left for seed tree, with or without follow-up tending, or is there a more complex strategy? Please elaborate in the
                                                                                        strategies as to what is done.
 588 IDP          1          116      33                 2.3.3 Management               Reword the sentence starting "The business plan also…" to "The SFL business plan…". The word "also" needs to be removed. This
                                                         Alternatives                   will make it clear it is the SFL business plan being discussed now instead of the facility business plan.
 290 IDP          1          128      22, 23             2.3.4 Analysis of MAs          For the term "generally sustainable" please use other words or clarify what this term means.
 292 IDP          1          133      17-19              2.3.4 Analysis of MAs          Also mention the 1988 fires as natural disturbance within the last 20 years.
 317 HM           1          121                         2.3.4 Analysis of MAs          You will need to provide a brief description of the analytical tools used for the analysis of management alternative or reference to where
                                                                                        in the plan those tools are identified. As per FMPM A58 line 25-29
 140 HM           1          149                         2.3.5 Selection of MA          Table FMP-14 must be introduced or referenced in the text of the plan. You should also reference or include the assumptions used in
                                                                                        calculating revenue and expenditures. Also, there are no supporting graphs as required by the FMPM.
     47 CES       1          158      1                  2.3.7 Eligibility              Need to state relative importance of each criterion in identifying areas eligible. If in order of priority, or if all equal, please state so.

 308 IDP          1          161      8                  2.3.8 Primary Road Corridors Please either remove or explain the sentence starting "Options must be developed...." There are no new primary roads in this FMP.

 324 IDP          1          161      33                 2.3.8 Primary Road Corridors   On line 33, please add the word "new" in front of "20-year" for clarity.
  53 CES          1          168      18                 2.4.2 Selection of Areas of    Map 8.1b (renewal and tending) is missing from Appendix 7 in the regional copy. This is needed. Also suggest that the reference to the
                                                         Operations                     illustration of the selected areas should also include the 1:20000 area selected for operations maps.
 328 IDP          1          165      19, 20             2.4.2 Selection of Areas of    For number 4, areas cut and assessed as not regenerating will have to be more than considered for renewal. Unless this is saying that
                                                         Operations                     the area just needs more time to regenerate. Need to clarify or explain further.
 330 IDP          1          166      3, 4               2.4.2 Selection of Areas of    If planting stock is severely suppressed, tending should be more than considered. Need to clarify or explain further. Or else reword the
                                                         Operations                     part on the severity of suppression.
 589 IDP          1          164      35 to 44           2.4.2 Selection of Areas of    For the points under selection criteria # 10, use of the word "must" needs to be changed as not all of these items can be guaranteed
                                                         Operations                     (e.g. "on time delivery of wood"). Some of these items would seem to be beyond the scope of selection criteria.
     58 CES       1          170      34-38              2.4.3 Prescriptions for        This paragraph will need to be updated to cover the new FMPM requirement (amendments). Suggest this be simplified as to ... if new
                                                         Operations                     values are encountered they will be addressed as per the FMPM(2006) planning requirements and reported as per FIM requirements.
                                                                                        You may want to have a look at the values amendment decision key (I can provide) regarding amendments, if you really want to get into
                                                                                        the details specific to new values encountered and actions required.
     61 CES       1          178      26                 2.4.3 Prescriptions for        This statement need to be adjusted to reflect the requirement that it is the prescription that is developed in accordance with the guide,
                                                         Operations                     and it is the prescription in the plan that will be used.
     64 CES       1          179      37                 2.4.3 Prescriptions for        Missing a statement to identify that this (the prescriptions outlined from the guide) will actually be used. See line 19-20.
                                                         Operations
 162 CDC          1          170      9                  2.4.3 Prescriptions for        pg 170-176: it is not clear, given level of detail & way sup doc is referenced WHAT are actual approved AOC prescriptions as required
                                                         Operations                     of FMPM; at start pg 170 line 11 add new paragraph: 'The selected prescriptions for all AOCs within the areas selected for operations
                                                                                        for the five-year term are presented in Table FMP-17. This includes areas of operations from the 2001-2006 plan that require silviculture
                                                                                        operations in this plan term. Documentation of the decision making process to identify the selected prescription is included in the AOC
                                                                                        supplementary documentation N. The AOCs are identified on the areas selected for operations maps. FMP-17, the AOC sup doc and
                                                                                        maps are linked by the AOC code (identifier)'; pg 171 end of line 1 add '(refer to FMP-17 for the selected prescription)'; delete pg 170
                                                                                        lines 27-32 & pg 176 line 20 as now corrected/included in above; also refer to ID#163

 163 CDC          1          173      44                 2.4.3 Prescriptions for        pg 174 lines 13-38: AOC prescription does not go in plan text & needs to be removed - just reference FMP-17/sup doc as done &
                                                         Operations                     remove prescription; FMPM requires prescription in AOC sup doc & selected prescription in FMP-17; ensure what is required for HPCH
                                                                                        values is documented in FMP-17/sup doc




                                                                                                   Page 8                                                                                                                               List of Required Alterations
ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other   Topic                     Details


 164 CDC        1          171      34               2.4.3 Prescriptions for   line 34: remove reference to Code of Practice as there is nothing in it about what is permitted in 30-90m AOCs for cold or cool water
                                                     Operations                systems, this direction comes from Fish Guide (Code refers to leaving minimum 3m filter strip); line 34 revise 'recommends no clear
                                                                               cutting in AOC reserves' to 'does not recommend clear cutting in AOCs' (Fish Guide only refers to selection cutting, it does not say 'no
                                                                               clear cutting, reserve = no operations); line 37 this sentence is about coolwater 'systems'; therefore revise '(no more than 50% of the
                                                                               shoreline)' to '(no more than 50% of the shoreline of lakes and no more than 50% of the length of streams)' to correspond with the Fish
                                                                               Guide
 165 CDC        1          171      42               2.4.3 Prescriptions for   statement about wild rice & low quality moose aquatic values being 'included' with water quality AOCs because 'reserves for these
                                                     Operations                values' were 'based on similar slopes' is technically incorrect; these AOCs do not have 'wild rice' & 'low quality moose aquatics' listed as
                                                                               values with a grouped AOC that includes them; need to revise - it appears what is meant is something like: 'Wild rice and low quality
                                                                               moose aquatic feeding area values do not have specific AOC prescriptions. Where these values may occur they will be adequately
                                                                               addressed by the fisheries/water quality prescription.'
 167 CDC        1          173      43               2.4.3 Prescriptions for   shows January 2003 version of cultural heritage note, however, this 2006 plan was required to use the 'November 2004' version
                                                     Operations
 168 CDC        1          176      8                2.4.3 Prescriptions for   line 8: refers to 'buffers' along highways & then 'AOC reserves'... ONLY applied to Hwy 17 in this FMP; this 1st sentence appears to be
                                                     Operations                generic & not applicable to THIS FMP; text needs to correspond to the plan; either remove 1st sentence or revise to something like
                                                                               'Corridors include areas along provincial highways.'; line 17: refers to new 'guidelines' - there is no Guide related to this, believe this
                                                                               refers to the new MNR procedure; revise to specifically name procedure are referring to
 198 CDC        1          181      37               2.4.3 Prescriptions for   re 'modified clearcutting techniques will be CONSIDERED'; have shown this as required alteration because it seems the word
                                                     Operations                'considered' is not appropriate, would need to follow SGRs which need to follow silviculture guides; so the SGRs should already be
                                                                               showing appropriate harvest methods, advance growth for appropriate ES; also pg 182 line 3 re '5. locations of springs & intermittent
                                                                               steams will be CONSIDERED' in road location' - what does 'considered mean', what are the conditions on operations at springs &
                                                                               intermittent streams (cross reference to appropriate AOC, or if covered under roads or describe)
 200 CDC        1          182      44               2.4.3 Prescriptions for   this section is about planned clearcuts not disturbances so that discussion along with what was actually achieved for NDPEG needs to
                                                     Operations                be moved where rest is in section 2.4.4.1.2); this section within prescriptions for all other areas needs information required of FMPM pg
                                                                               A-93 lines 6-18 & pg A-95(graph/chart showing planned clearcut area & frequency by size class, maximum & average size of planned
                                                                               clearcuts (this is not found till pg 183 line 21), exceptions for planned clearcuts >260ha location identified with rationale for THE
                                                                               location); noticed Appendix 6B has table re exceptions mixed in with spatial analysis, however, FMPM clearly states plan TEXT
                                                                               requirements (can't find table 18b); note figure on FMPM pg A-95 is refered to under 'prescriptions for all other areas' pg A-93 line 9; it's
                                                                               not part of 'depletion' section; this alteration will assist with avoiding confusion among planned clearcuts vs disturbance requirements

 335 IDP        1          172      2                2.4.3 Prescriptions for   Change wording to "Tertiary roads will be required..."
                                                     Operations
 338 IDP        1          177      25               2.4.3 Prescriptions for   Line 25 - need to change "and approved by..." to "and certified by..."
                                                     Operations
 356 LOS        1          172      4                2.4.3 Prescriptions for   In line 5 please add " All water crossings will follow the process outlined in the Protocol for the Review of Water Crossings Proposed
                                                     Operations                Through the Forest management Planning Process and the Stream Crossing Toolkit for the Kenora Forest".
                                                                               These publications will need to be included as appendices.

 360 LOS        1                                    2.4.3 Prescriptions for   Somewhere within the plan text (prescriptions for areas of concern) you will need to refer to and include some text describing the new
                                                     Operations                Protocol for the Review of Water Crossings and the Stream Crossing Toolkit for the Kenora Forest.
                                                                               Also the flow chart for unmapped creeks will need to be referenced and appended.




                                                                                          Page 9                                                                                                                               List of Required Alterations
ID     Reviewer   Binder #   Page #    Line #   Other   Topic                            Details


 504 SJD          1          177       1                2.4.3 Prescriptions for          From PT-18 approved meeting minutes it was agreed "Regarding an interim Fire Strategy for the Aulneau Peninsula, Steve indicated
                                                        Operations                       that a 'Fire Priority' be set for the area. As well, in general, priority areas should be identified across the entire SFL for modified fire
                                                                                         protection." Appropriate reflective text should be included.
 592 IDP          1          202       25               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew
                                                        & Tend                           The word guideline will have to be removed and make it clear that it is the FMP Manual that states this.
     82 CES       1          201       32-33            2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew    Please delete the end of this sentence as the allocation maps should never designate areas to licensees (FMPM A-105, ln 22-24)
                                                        & Tend
     83 CES       1          202       28-33            2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Suggest this text be reworked. It seems out of place in dealing with contingency, but if the intent is to tie in the requirements to leave
                                                        & Tend                        residual patches, then this needs to be clarified. Also, I am confused as to the FMP amendment requirement when earlier text identified
                                                                                      that they can be adjusted at the time of operations (pg 197). This apparent contradiction needs to be addressed
     86 CES       1          204       9                2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Some contradiction exists in the way fuelwood is being treated with the text (page 177, ln 32-37; page 204 ln 9; page 203 ln 39) which
                                                        & Tend                        refers to locations being mapped while the map does not show any areas. Suggest footnote on ASFO should be clear that all harvest
                                                                                      area are selected (likely to occur) and that specific locations will be identified at the AWS stage, and the text adjusted accordingly.

     72 CES       1          191       15-22            2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew I do not see the same level of detail as is covered on pages 203-204. Please either shorten or remove the entire paragraph and refer
                                                        & Tend                        the reader to the more detailed discussion on pages 203-204.
     90 CES       1          209       1-23             2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Some information is missing regarding procurement, stock type and year. Also, should identify the proposed growers that you have
                                                        & Tend                        under contract.
 145 HM           1          192       8-11             2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Please adjust text to read "Since there was no local fire history information available at the time of planning, the template developed for
                                                        & Tend                        this plan was based on two existing provincial fire history databases. The first provides fire history information for 1920-2000 timeframe
                                                                                      and contains only those fires greater than 200 hectares in size (based on Donnelly and Harrington fire history maps as refined by the
                                                                                      OMNR fire program). The second database is the Ontario forest fire database and it contains fires of all sizes for the 1976 to 2000
                                                                                      period. Theses two databases represent the best available information at the time of plan production for Ecodistrict 4S1 and 4S6".
                                                                                      Please adjust text in Appendix 6B page 3-4 as well.
 146 HM           1          194       34               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Table 1 in Appendix 6B does not show the spatial and temporal assessment, but a summary of planned clearcuts which exceed 260 ha.
                                                        & Tend                        Please adjust the text and/or table to reflect this assessment.
 147 HM           1          195       23               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Incorrect reference, please correct.
                                                        & Tend
 159 HM           1          201       18-19            2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew This statement is incorrect. The Kenora Forest received an SFL in April 8, 2002. Please correct.
                                                        & Tend
 203 CDC          1          194       37               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew discussion on planned clearcuts including exceptions needs to be under 'prescriptions for all other areas' (see ID#200); this section
                                                        & Tend                        could include discussion on meeting NDPEG requirement of 80% of planned clearcuts being <260 ha as is there now as this is part of
                                                                                      NDPEG spatial analysis requirement rather than FMPM planned clearcut requirements; note pg 195 line 8 shows average planned
                                                                                      clearcut size as 180 ha but pg 183 line 21 shows 183 ha; if using same heading as now shown on pg 194 line 37 cross reference to
                                                                                      planned clearcut discussion on pg 182 for the other info (size classes, exceptions, etc.)
 206 HM           1          207-208   15               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew You have included forest renewal limits in your strategic modeling. Please discuss the implication of these limits as it relates to your
                                                        & Tend                        plan objectives. There were no discussion in objective section and Appendix 8A of the draft plan.
 210 CDC          1          197       15               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew this section 'individual tree retention' belongs in 'prescriptions for all other areas' because this is actually part of 'prescriptions' that need
                                                        & Tend                        to be followed during operations; this is why this alteration is shown as required
 344 IDP          1          193       5-8              2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew These 2 sentences should discuss the 1991 blowdown and the 1988 fires. If the period referenced is 1986-2006, these 2 disturbances
                                                        & Tend                        will have to be mentioned and the second sentence corrected.
 364 IDP          1          204       30               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Change schedule E to appendix E. Also Appendix F of the SFL has to be referenced here.
                                                        & Tend




                                                                                                    Page 10                                                                                                                                List of Required Alterations
ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #     Line #   Other   Topic                           Details


 365 IDP        1          204        38, 39           2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew The amount committed to the Trus Joist facility is not 873,300 m3. This is the allocated volume from the blocks (based on best
                                                       & Tend                        estimate) and this needs to be changed to use the 146,000 m3 annual amount (multiplied by 5) from the conditional commitment letter
                                                                                     instead. See FMPM page A-115 lines 14-16 which states that approval of a FMP is not an agreement to supply wood to a particular mill.
                                                                                     The same alteration applies to page 224, lines 19 and 20.
 366 IDP        1          204        42               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Please remove the word "ministerial" from line 42. Also need to make it clear that the volume numbers in this line are 5 year numbers
                                                       & Tend                        and not annual.
 367 IDP        1          205        2                2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew For the sentence starting "The total volume of mill commitments....." - this is not the commitment number and it contradicts page 204
                                                       & Tend                        line 42. Please remove this sentence as page 204 line 42 already covers this for mill commitments.
 377 MED        1          207        20               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Statement indicates that the preferred treatment will be ccharvest-SIP-plant...for the establishment of softwood. This does not match up
                                                       & Tend                        with CMX-2.01 FMP 10.

 378 MED        1          207        42               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Page 207 (line 42-44)-208l(lines 1-5)
                                                       & Tend                        Need to better explain what is the preferred treatment as in previous FU.
                                                                                     Comment: Aerial seeding on green stone may be an issue for success due to high competition.

 379 MED        1          208        26-28            2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   PWD the statement does not match FMP10. The statement on page 208 is not realistic. Tending will be required on the majority of
                                                       & Tend                          these sites to ensure success as indicated in the SGR.
 380 MED        1          207        44               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   PJP page 207 & 208 talks about genetically improved seed cross reference this to FMP 25 and there is no relationship with the table
                                                       & Tend                          and text.
                                                                                       Plan needs to define "near future" if its not during this planning term remove. If it is there needs to be a linkage with FMP 25.
 381 MED        1          208        39-40            2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   Some clarification needed on the following.
                                                       & Tend                          Slash pile burning will be conducted on deep soil sites this is different from the past...why?
                                                                                        Does the statement "left on site" mean at road side or within the cutover. Slash pile at road side must be managed in order to
                                                                                       decrease the amount of land lost to roads and landings and to address the threat of fire associated with road side slash piles. If these
                                                                                       are not burnt then they must be distributed across the cutover.
 382 MED        1          209        16               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   Renewal support: the statement does not match FMP 10. All UCB is natural...so why collect Ce seed???
                                                       & Tend                          need to explain or remove.
 401 HM         1          192        10-11            2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   Reference to the Analysis Result document is incorrect. Please change it to the "Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance
                                                       & Tend                          Pattern Emulation".
 421 IDP        1          194, 195   42               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   Page 194 line 42, page 195 lines 1 and 23 refer to FMP-18b and this reference needs to be corrected or the table added.
                                                       & Tend
 422 IDP        1          200        24               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   Composite needs to be added to the list of products as per table FMP-21.
                                                       & Tend
 424 IDP        1          203        4-6              2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   This sentence comes from the FMPM but there is no unutilized volume in the table so remove or reword sentence.
                                                       & Tend
 425 IDP        1          203        11               2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   Change the wording on line 11 to ".... timber volume will be left on site...."
                                                       & Tend
 427 IDP        1          204        3-7              2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   Overlapping agreements between the individual and SFL are required first for all types of personal use licences. Line 7 says "may be
                                                       & Tend                          required". The sentence on lines 6 and 7 should be removed as the company should be the first contact to begin with.
 428 IDP        1          203        28, 29           2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   This paragraph also needs to specify that overlapping agreements with the SFL for fuelwood are signed by individuals and there are
                                                       & Tend                          conditions in those. No reference has been made to this and that the company has a role to play here.
 447 IDP        1          204        36, 37           2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   Please remove the sentence starting "All of the mills receiving conifer...." as it is not really necessary to say this. Same alteration has to
                                                       & Tend                          be done for page 224, lines 17, 18.
 451 IDP        1          205        7-12             2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew   Need to add wording to the text on wood going to mills not recorded in the FMP such as "the priority is to provide wood to SFL appendix
                                                       & Tend                          E and F mills."




                                                                                                  Page 11                                                                                                                               List of Required Alterations
ID     Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other   Topic                          Details


 452 IDP          1          205      19, 20           2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew The outbreak of jack pine budworm south of the Kenora forest and edging into the forest should be mentioned here.
                                                       & Tend
 461 IDP          1          208      9                2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew Add objectives # 3 and 6 to the list. Objective # 3 has the PRW target.
                                                       & Tend
     98 CES       1          216      24-37            2.4.5 Access Roads            Section needs to be tightened up. Examples include 'will be accommodated by observing measures ...'. Also, the sentence on line 29-
                                                                                     30 is missing the fact that even those streams not identified on OBM's are still values and still required AOC's. Lastly I would suggest
                                                                                     this paragraph should also acknowledge the new requirements for amendments FMPM(2004) as related to roads and new values, or
                                                                                     changes in values.
 100 CES          1          217      30               2.4.5 Access Roads            What is meant by 'will implement the best practices contained within ... ' If these are conditions they should be stated in the FMP.

 353 MED          1          215      20               2.4.5 Access Roads             Line 16-22 explains the reclassification of some of the old road systems on the Unit. Line 20 states that the roads have been reclassified
                                                                                      from tertiary to secondary.
                                                                                      Many of the roads identified are all ready secondary and may need to be reclassified as primary.
                                                                                      Check 2001-2021 FMP 26 and reword.
                                                                                      Also reference is made of the "whitefish Road" do you mean the white road or whitefish road?
 467 IDP          1          211      6, 7             2.4.5 Access Roads             Need to reword sentence starting with "All primary and secondary....". There are no new primary roads in the plan and it appears the
                                                                                      intent would be to say this is done for new secondary roads.
 468   IDP        1          211      23, 24           2.4.5 Access Roads             Remove reference to access into surplus areas as not applicable.
 469   IDP        1          212      16               2.4.5 Access Roads             Werner Road will have to be discussed here as well under travel restrictions.
 470   IDP        1          212      21-28            2.4.5 Access Roads             Tertiary road abandonment needs to be discussed here as well.
 472   IDP        1          216      24-37            2.4.5 Access Roads             Please state in this paragraph that all bridges (temporary and permanent) will be part of the signed MOU for bridges. Also state that
                                                                                      "The company will obtain approval from the MNR regional engineer for all bridges (temporary and permanent) prior to their installation."

 473 IDP          1          216      24-37            2.4.5 Access Roads             This section must state that all secondary road water crossings will be installed with culverts or bridges sized for the 1:25 year (Q25)
                                                                                      flood event.
 474 IDP          1          217      33               2.4.5 Access Roads             Need to state that all tertiary road water crossings will be installed with culverts or bridges sized for the 1:10 year (Q10) flood event.

 475 IDP          1          217      16               2.4.5 Access Roads             Please state in this section that all bridges (temporary and permanent) for tertiary roads will be part of the signed MOU for bridges. Also
                                                                                      state that "The company will obtain approval from the MNR regional engineer for all bridges (temporary and permanent) prior to their
                                                                                      installation."
 479 IDP          1          220                       2.4.5 Access Roads             Abandonment of tertiary roads must be discussed in this section as this is presented in the road strategy map.
 576 IDP          1          220      32, 33           2.4.5 Access Roads             Reference to table AWS-5 should be changed to AWS-5 and AWS-4 (to reflect new FMP manual)
 577 IDP          1          221      16               2.4.6 Revenues and             Replace "special purpose account" with "forest renewal trust fund".
                                                       Expenditures
 579 IDP          1          221                       2.4.6 Revenues and             Please add a sentence in this section stating that area charges currently do not apply.
                                                       Expenditures
 580 IDP          1                                    2.4.6 Revenues and             FMPM requires that estimates and any assumptions (also mentions ratios) which were used to forecast expenditures must be identified
                                                       Expenditures                   in the plan text (for this section).
 309 HM           1          225      25-31            2.4.7 Comparison of Harv,      You have incorporated mid-rotation tending in the strategic model. Please discuss the implication with respect to the final test of
                                                       Renew & Tend to SMA            sustainability.




                                                                                                 Page 12                                                                                                                            List of Required Alterations
ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other   Topic                Details


 212 CDC        1          229      6                2.5 Monitoring and   Re 'EFFECTS MONITORING is also conducted in order to document both positive & negative effects to forest cover & forest values that
                                                     Assessment           may have resulted from operational activities. The information collected is used to prepare annual reports...& for audit purposes'; this
                                                                          appears to be copied from FMPM, however, is inappropriate for THIS plan, since section 2.5 does not have anything re this 'effects
                                                                          monitoring' and is not relevant to 'audit purposes'; also line 11 'It may be necessary to develop & implement monitoring programs for
                                                                          any...exception or not recommended practice ... exception at district, regional, provincial level'; this is technically incorrect as doing
                                                                          operation 'not recommended' is an exception & monitoring programs are REQUIRED for exceptions IN the FMP as per FMPM pg A-133
                                                                          lines 25-30; revise so relevant to this plan
 213 CDC        1          229      15               2.5 Monitoring and   re 'Any exception monitoring procedures can be found in Appendix 5 of the FMP'; this appendix only has ES 11& 12 monitoring
                                                     Assessment           procedures; all exceptions require monitoring methods as per FMPM pg A-133 lines 25-30; what about monitoring programs written in
                                                                          text of this section of plan
 216 CDC        1          232      26               2.5 Monitoring and   re 'MNR Area Forester will determine whether the SGR is appropriate for these types of ground rules'; why MNR area forester; the
                                                     Assessment           company plan author has certified/is responsible to certify the SGRs & it would be company R.P.F. that certifies forest operation
                                                                          prescription is appropriate for actual site conditions; sentence is also incorrect (determine whether SGR is appropriate for ground rule?),
                                                                          what is this supposed to say
 217 CDC        1          232      33               2.5 Monitoring and   refers to ES 12 only as not recommended, but page 108 'silvicultural exceptions' refers to ES 11 & 12 as exceptions (& certification page
                                                     Assessment           refers to ES 12 only)
 221 CDC        1          234      3                2.5 Monitoring and   lines 3-6 incorrectly identify what monitoring program is identified for in THIS plan; if monitoring is being carried over from previous plan
                                                     Assessment           exceptions list nests & where monitoring is at, there are no exceptions for AOC N; what is in plan requires revision to '...the
                                                                          effectiveness of exceptions to the Osprey Guide and as a condition of allowing roads where not permitted by the Osprey Guide AOC
                                                                          and Guide for sensitive nesting sites.'; line 9 re 'December 2001', not sure where this date is from, version of regional direction in
                                                                          training is dated March 10, 2000
 257 CDC        1          234      15               2.5 Monitoring and   this section does not correctly state all monitoring identified in AOC sup doc & reasons for it; revise to reflect actual reasons i.e. This
                                                     Assessment           monitoring program is required for: exceptions to Osprey Guide for clearcut harvesting & mechanical site preparation in HDBZ & tree
                                                                          planting during nesting season in AOC ONh, ON1, ON2; tree planting during nesting season in AOC ONr; this monitoring program is
                                                                          also required for construction of tertiary roads in HDBZ for AOC ONh, ON1, ON2; construction of a secondary road in ON3;
                                                                          reconstruction of tertiary road for AOC ON4 (note this would need adjustment to what actual exceptions are in final plan i.e. tending?);
                                                                          also line 17 re 'that is listed under osprey section below' - THIS IS osprey monitoring section - revise to 'nest monitoring schedule in
                                                                          Figure 52 below'
 259 CDC        1          234      40               2.5 Monitoring and   lines 40-42 incorrectly state reasons for monitoring - there are no sensitive nest exceptions identified in this plan; revise to 'Sensitive
                                                     Assessment           nesting site AOCs with road construction planned where not permitted by the Guide'; also line 44 needs to be corrected to include
                                                                          secondary road construction for AOCs N, N1, N2, N3, N6 and _____road reconstruction for AOCs N4, N5; also pg 235 line 8-9, the
                                                                          direction is actually under signature of regional director & should be referenced as titled: 'Interim NWR direction for describing the
                                                                          requirements of a monitoring plan for any declared exceptions, march 10, 2000'; also page 236 lines 7-8, note the FMPM requires
                                                                          results of exception monitoring be reported in the Annual Report
 383 MED        1          230      19       2.52    2.5 Monitoring and   Remove the reference regarding FOIP reports being completed by licensee. none of the licensee meet the criteria or have been
                                                     Assessment           approved by SSM to carry out FOIP inspections.
                                                                          Line 28 remove the sentence starting "with Trust Joist will train .... same reason as above.
 384 MED        1          230      26               2.5 Monitoring and   need to reword to reflect the time lines
                                                     Assessment           (some operations are 10 days some are 20)
                                                                          direction can be found in the "guidelines for forest industry compliance planning" and the associated enforcement procedures (ENF
                                                                          22.0.1 22.02.01)
                                                                          this also applies to page 231 line 22-23.
 385 MED        1          231                       2.5 Monitoring and   Company need to explain how start up of an operation will be reported and documented.
                                                     Assessment
 581 IDP        1          229      26               2.5 Monitoring and   Remove the word "approved" before action items.
                                                     Assessment
 586 IDP        1          233      29               2.5 Monitoring and   In addition to the wording around line 29, FTG surveys for each year must be reported in annual reports for all surveyed area whether it
                                                     Assessment           was found FTG or not.




                                                                                     Page 13                                                                                                                              List of Required Alterations
ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other         Topic                Details


 587 IDP        1          233      43, 44                 2.5 Monitoring and   The statement that "all previous possible FTG areas have already been surveyed, and reclassified..." - this needs to discuss the
                                                           Assessment           blowdown and fire areas in the north end of the unit not surveyed and/or provide further explanation of what "all previous possible FTG
                                                                                areas" means.
 593 IDP        1          236      22                     2.5 Monitoring and
                                                           Assessment           Change "will be included in the FMP…." to "is included in the FMP…."
 591 IDP        2                            Appendix 1    FMP Summary          All alterations to the main text that apply to the FMP summary will have to be made to the summary as well.
 224 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc          AOC ON2: Part IIC description alt 1 says 'the RESERVE includes all area within up to 800m of the nest...no harvesting', then further on
                                             N                                  says 'tending in previously harvested areas...'; then further on says 'harvesting with HDBZ during non-nesting period...'; reserve = no
                                                                                operations permitted; need to revise so is not contradictory;
                                                                                Part III says no primary or secondary roads in 'reserve' - what about rest of AOC, this should say none or attach Part III for new roads,
                                                                                as now implies no restriction on new roads outside reserve
 225 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc          AOC ON3: Part IIA, B, or C is only completed for prescription (harvest, renewal or tending) (FMPM pg APP-32 line 7); since 'roads' are
                                             N                                  not part of prescription this goes in IID or III; therefore prescription is not an exception & Part IIA is filled out (specific direction) re 800m
                                                                                reserve for H, R, T; as covered at FMP operational training; part III includes some of what is incorrectly shown in Part IIC now, but each
                                                                                part shows different times when road construction can occur; double check correct times/everything is in Part III

 226 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc          AOC ON4: as per ID#225 prescription is not an exception; revise to Part IIA re 800m reserve for H, R, T; roads are not part of
                                             N                                  prescription; note Part III says no primary/secondary roads in AOC yet 1st page says a tertiary road is being reconstructed to secondary;
                                                                                reclassification needs Part III as treated as new road, change to use mgt strategy, have to deal with AOC planning (alt corridors not
                                                                                needed if using existing ROW); this was covered in FMP operational training see tab 6 road planning slides 16 & 17; if monitoring
                                                                                program is a condition of allowing secondary road then state this in Part III
 227 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc          AOC ONh: Part III says no primary or secondary roads in 'reserve' - what about rest of AOC, this should say none or attach Part III for
                                             N                                  new roads, as now implies no restriction on new roads outside reserve but within AOC
 228 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc          All Osprey AOC Sup Docs: if a monitoring program is a condition of allowing a tertiary road then state this in Part IID; source of
                                             N                                  monitoring program for FMP section 2.5 is THIS sup doc, so why cross reference to section 2.5; unsure where Dec 2001 for monitoring
                                                                                direction comes from, my copy has 10 March 2000; also exception certification page shows 'tending' as an exception, yet none of
                                                                                osprey sup docs show this; if is an exception show in sup docs, else remove from certification page
 229 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc          AOC ONr: like in other osprey AOCs, tree planting during nesting season is an exception (Osprey Guide section 2.3.2.3 says tree
                                             N                                  planting is permitted at times other than during nesting season); therefore AOC sup doc needs revision for exception documentation;
                                                                                Part III says no primary or secondary roads in 'reserve' - what about rest of AOC, this should say none or attach Part III for new roads,
                                                                                as now implies no restriction on new roads outside reserve
 234 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc          AOC BH & BH1: description '1 km from the nest' needs to be '1 km from the periphery of nest colony'; Part III says no P/S roads
                                             N                                  permitted in 'reserve', this needs to be none in 'AOC' unless there is a Part III completed; prescription includes reference to roads but
                                                                                this is only for harvest, renewal & tending as per FMPM Appendix VII pg APP-32 line 7 & covered at training; BH1 reference to Cameron
                                                                                Road belongs under Part III; this requirement is even more clear when looking at FMP-17 where it says H, R, T but roads are written
                                                                                there in error
 235 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc          ALL 'N' AOCs: all show dimension as 400-800m from nest location - why is this not 0-800m from nest location, discuss with reviewer;
                                             N                                  none of prescriptions for harvest, renewal, tending cover 0-400m from nest, yet roads refers to primary, secondary & tertiary zones;
                                                                                revise so dimension & prescription cover full AOC planning requirements of Guide 0-800m; reference to Guide as shown needs to
                                                                                remain in sup doc given this is a FMPM planning requirement, location is issue with FIM & this has been addressed by coding & values
                                                                                listing as reflected on maps & FMP-17 (Rds sup doc ok too - re CES ID#132); checked FMP-17 & does not match sup docs - reference
                                                                                to HDBZ in H, R, T & tertiary roads has reserve & HDBZ; revise sup docs & then FMP-17 to match

 236 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc          AOC N (also refer to ID#235): Part III on pg 1 says none, yet there is a Part III attached - revise; part IV says regular, yet Part III
                                             N                                  attached says need monitoring program; Part III alt 2 needs to refer to effects/measures to deal with stream & nest (can cross reference
                                                                                to alt 1); proposed road is not shown on list at front of plan; noticed AOC N3 Part III has very similar wording to N, just different nest#, is
                                                                                there supposed to be two separate Part IIIs or ?




                                                                                           Page 14                                                                                                                                   List of Required Alterations
ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other         Topic         Details


 237 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   AOC N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6 (also refer to ID#235): since Part IIA, B or C only applies to harvest, renewal & tending (FMPM appendix
                                             N                           VII pg App-32 line 7 & operational planning training), not roads, then Part C exception does not apply/can not say is exception to Guide
                                                                         under proposed prescription; revise to Part IIB Recommendation, since 400-800m prescription is based on local conditions; note N6
                                                                         incorrectly has both Part IIC & Part IIB (FMPM requires ONE part); Part III is where alternatives for roads & rationale is located & tertiary
                                                                         road conditions go in Part IID
 238 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   N4, N5 (also refer to ID#237 & 235): says no tertiary & no P/S roads, no Part III, yet Part IIC completed incorrectly & monitoring program
                                             N                           says there is road reconstruction; Part III or IID conditions are missing (reviewer notes part III was done for N6 where existing road may
                                                                         require upgrading)
 239 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   AOC N6 (also refer to ID#237, 235): Part III heading says to P/S roads, yet Part III is attached & there is a monitoring program for road
                                             N                           construction
 240 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   AOC WQcd & WQcl: re 'actual reserve width will be as mapped'; should this be revised to 'actual reserve width will be based on actual
                                             N                           slope as determined in the field with additional reserve width beyond the 90m as mapped'; would allow for ensuring AOC meets guide
                                                                         requirements where slopes vary in field from what was mapped; Part III 2nd paragraph last sentence also needs to indicate 'This change
                                                                         will be approved through the AWS'; REGARDING WQcd: part III indicates are proposed P/S roads, but part IIIs are missing (new roads
                                                                         & reconstruction); listing shows none, appears part III text is incorrect; REGARDING WQcl listing refers to tertiary road abandonment;
                                                                         therefore part IID needs to indicate the criteria in Criteria for Removal of Water Crossings of Abandoned Roads will be considered (as
                                                                         stated in this document pg 9)
 241 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   AOC MAcl & MAcd: list with certification page says 'all tertiary roads are to be removed following the completion of operations' but this is
                                             N                           not reflected in these sup docs (note this detail does not belong with certification page); are there actually any crossings mapped, since
                                                                         listing does not indicate; since Moose Guide does not permit roads in MAFAs, wondering why there are such generic conditions for
                                                                         tertiary roads; that is there is nothing here saying they are not permitted & that they would only be permitted under certain conditions (no
                                                                         other location is available); are these lake AOCs or stream AOCs; more likely there may need to be crossings in stream AOCs than lake;
                                                                         also Part IIIs are missing, from listing appears there are no P/S roads crossing these AOCs & therefore this needs to be removed

 242 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   AOC Chp: alternative 1, 3rd page last paragraph above environmental analysis is out of place/ duplication of above; this comes from
                                             N                           another FMP format, but above is also from yet another plan format; if you check will see 1st 2 sentences & last 3 are already shown
                                                                         above; 3rd & 4th sentences, if to remain, belong at the start; it is important to correct this as appears are 2 different prescriptions; for
                                                                         this reason have shown as 'required'
 244 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   AOC TVa, TVae: TVa should have max ROW width for road through AOC; since Fish Guide does not permit roads in 30-90m AOC it
                                             N                           would seem appropriate to document under IID why these roads are required (no other access alternative?) and to include other
                                                                         mitigative measures; it is noted AOC TVlp part III does include more such as immediate revegetation, limited grubbing activities, etc.
                                                                         which could be reviewed for ideas on what to include in TVA, TVae
 245 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   AOC TVr1, TVr4, TVr5: Part IIC is for harvest, renewal & tending PRESCRIPTION only, as stated on other AOC review comments/as
                                             N                           per FMPM, not roads; within AOC are there any conditions on H, R, T (from looking at FMP-17 it says none; SOURCE for FMP-17 IS
                                                                         THIS SUP DOC, therefore under Part II PRESCRIPTION state 'no conditions on H, R, T; tertiary road conditions only'; then all the
                                                                         alternative analysis is not applicable (neither Part IIA, B, or C is being filled out) - put all conditions under part IID; part III needs to say
                                                                         no P/S roads in 'AOC' rather than 'reserve', since this AOC has no reserve 'prescription'; comments just seem to be about access so
                                                                         this goes under 'Part IID 2 public comments'; ALSO AOC TVr2, public comments appear to be about roads (also) & belong under part
                                                                         IID
 246 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   AOC TVr8: this AOC appears to only be about roads, therefore Part II needs to say 'no conditions on harvest, renewal & tending',
                                             N                           secondary road part III only'; part IIC environmental analysis is not applicable & needs to be removed; part III is missing, this is where
                                                                         alternative analysis/rationale is done, it is not done in part IIC as shown
 249 CDC        6                            AOC Sup Doc   AOC Sup Doc   AOC Nr: revise 'No operations in 'reserve', unless...' to 'No operations in 'AOC', unless...'; last sentence revise 'reserve' to 'AOC'; as per
                                             N                           back of FMP-17 in FMPM, reserve is where no forest management activities are to occur




                                                                                    Page 15                                                                                                                                  List of Required Alterations
ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other         Topic         Details


 482 IDP        6                            AOC for TVt   AOC Sup Doc   Block 493 is not listed under AOC TVt and doesn't appear to be in other TV category AOCs. As agreed with property owners, there
                                             and map                     should at a minimum be the timing restriction on weekend hauling in the summers. This will also need to appear as modified operations
                                                                         on the operations maps. Blocks 492 and 494 are listed.
 505 SJD        6                                          AOC Sup Doc   From PT-20 approved meeting minutes it was agreed that for RSA's, "Within the FMP, AOC prescriptions associated with RSA
                                                                         agreements/negotiations, will include a one page map and a one page summary description for each AOC in addition to noting the origin
                                                                         of the prescription in the appropriate AOC supp docs." This has not been included in the FMP submission.
 559 LOS        6                            Jadel Creek   AOC Sup Doc   Road prescriptions require specific conditions for each road. Cannot just state " will follow the guidelines". Please specify and detail
                                                                         conditions for each Primary/secondary road locations.
 562 IDP        6                            Sup Doc N     AOC Sup Doc   For listing of BH and BHr, the BHr should also be on the header of page for part 1, 2 - AOC description and prescription. BHr also
                                                                         needs to be listed in FMP-17 along with BH. Otherwise it could appear that there needs to be a separate prescription for BHr.

 565 IDP        6                            Sup Doc N     AOC Sup Doc   The tertiary roads part for the AOC prescription for WQcl states that the maximum road right-of-way width is 25 metres except where
                                                                         line of sight is a concern for safety. While recognizing there is a safety concern, there needs to be a maximum size here for line of sight
                                                                         situations so it is not left open-ended.
 121 CES        2                            Appendix 6b   Appendices    Missing the rationale for those planned disturbances where additional residual is not being provided. Teams have used a coding system
                                                                         and placed an additional column in table 2 with the codes explained in the text (Kenogami FMP). Suggest talking to Kevin regarding this
                                                                         documentation.
 161 CDC        2                            Appendix 2    Appendices    SEV Briefing Note: is not in this appendix; as per FMP training BN using Beyond 2000 was to be prepared & use direction re 'Our
                                                                         Sustainable Future' once available; this direction has now been provided - update using 15 July 05 direction from forest management
                                                                         branch 'Advice for Preparation of SEV Briefing Notes for draft 2006 FMPs'; it is recognized that this direction was provided after draft
                                                                         plan submission; reviewer requests SEV BN be submitted as soon as possible as a draft has not been seen, to facilitate plan review and
                                                                         approval
 204 CDC        2                            Appendix 6B   Appendices    Appendix 6B pg 10 last sentence: it is incorrect to say 'This matches the STANDARD within the NDPEG to have 20% of planned
                                                                         clearcuts greater than 260 ha'; there is no such 'standard' in NDPEG; this needs to be revised to reflect what the actual standard is:
                                                                         80% of planned clearcuts should be less than 260ha (NDPEG pg 3 last paragraph)
 215 CDC        2                            Appendix 5B   Appendices    ES 11& 12 monitoring procedures is incorrect version of document - note title page does show April 1, 2001 but other pages show Dec
                                                                         15, 2000 & last page shows a company that is not one of actual working group members; revise to final version, reviewer can provide
                                                                         electronic copy or also posted on FIM portal, information forum
 310 HM         2          3-4               Appendix 8A   Appendices    SFMMTOOL is a classification tool and therefore assumptions made in the tool need to be addressed. You must provide, or reference
                                                                         to:
                                                                         1. a description of the areas by FU and intensity and how the FRI area was assigned to various intensities. This is particularly important
                                                                         for those FU’s where there is a considerable portion of Intensive, basic, or extensive area e.g. WC2. 2.The text will also need to
                                                                         describe how the marten deferral was calculated with reference to marten core area summaries.
                                                                         3. Text must also describe how the silviculture inputs and assumptions relate to SGR's, yield curves etc.
 311 HM         2          4                 Appendix 8    Appendices    You require much more rationale for your natural succession assumptions with specific reference to the development of each FU and
                                                                         intensity. You must also describe in more detail how the post-disturbance succession was determined. Consider including a summary
                                                                         of the Northwest Region Science Data in the FMP.
 361 LOS        5                                          Appendices    Appendix M when referencing the Caribou Falls Section....
                                                                         The area in which you refer to as the English River is actually considered to be the Winnipeg River.
                                                                         The Winnipeg River is defined for enforcement purposes as:
                                                                         The outflow of Lake of the Woods to the Manitoba border, including: Middle, Muriel, Gun, Pistol, Lost , Little Sand, Big Sand, Hidden,
                                                                         Roughrock, Swan, Tetu and Eaglenest Lakes, the MacFarlane River downstream from the Ena Lake Dam and that portion of the English
                                                                         River from the confluence of the Winnipeg and English Rivers upstream to the Caribou Falls Dam.




                                                                                   Page 16                                                                                                                             List of Required Alterations
ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other           Topic        Details


 386 MED        2                            #5 Forest       Appendices   The Compliance Plan requires major changes. Company has not followed the "guidelines for forest industry compliance planning" as
                                             Compliance                   identified in part 1 of the guide.
                                             Plan                         Some of the key points missing background, direction, past present and future issues not described.
                                                                          How the Company plans to over come past compliance issues.
                                                                          Please revise using the guide as the template.
 388 RCB        3          9        6-8      Appendix 8D     Appendices   You should make mention of mention why there is an increase in PWD over the natural... restoration objective? You don't need to get
                                                                          into a lot of detail, just make the appropriate statement. A similar mention should also be in the main text with the discussion on page
                                                                          124.
 449 GLH        2          3                                 Appendices   App 6C, Ungulate management Strategy, Fig 1 Ungulate Zone map. Again a problem (some as Main Text Fig 20), with the caribou
                                                                          zone southern boundary, relative to caribou range map: "KFU Harvest Eligibility Dates Caribou Range 2006-2026". Please revise Fig 1
                                                                          to include tracts I and J (Werner Lake Area and East of Routine Lake. If problems with interpretation, please contact GH to discuss.

 450 GLH        2          7                                 Appendices   App 6C: Fig 2 Area of assessment map for caribou: The legend in currently not read-able in its reduced size. Please enlarge the map
                                                                          and the legend.
 492 SJD        2                            Appendix 2      Appendices   Include DRAFT SEV Briefing as provided.
 571 LOS        2                            appendix 6B     Appendices   NDPEG
                                                                          Please indicate a max number of trees that should be left per hectare. Only a minimum is indicated.
 394 GLH        1          53       3                        Caribou      Fig. 20 Ungulate Management Map: The caribou zone does not match the maps in App6C. I believe there are two additional tracts with
                                                                          potential for caribou occupancy in the future (tract I and J, although J is more productive), and a corresponding mosaic block with a
                                                                          timing based upon eligibility, based on the map in App 6C? Current occupancy might be confused with future range occupancy
                                                                          potential? The caribou management zone should include the latter concept. There are allocations and a new road being planned going
                                                                          in there so it should be an A block or open timing type block in the mosaic, (depending on the strategy) and be shown on Fig 20. Please
                                                                          contact GH to discuss if there are interpretation problems.
 442 KR         2          2        5                        NDPE         The text indicates that “the number and species of snags will be determined during pre-work assessment.” This makes sense but the
                                                                          plan should state clearly what is minimally acceptable under different circumstances. As an example - is 0 trees OK? Some other
                                                                          teams have included a brief methodology of how such a pre-work assessment may be carried out. Please provide more detail as to how
                                                                          this will be done and what criteria and minimal standards will be followed.
 443 KR         2          8        33                       NDPE         The text indicates that “methodology and techniques are still being developed to analyze and report the various requirements of the
                                                                          NDPE guideline...” To my knowledge there is no such project underway within MNR, Unless this refers to monitoring that the company
                                                                          is doing this paragraph should be removed.
 444 KR         2          8        25       Appendix 6B     NDPE         The text indicates that “it is expected that planned clearcuts that do not meet the guideline...targets in this analysis will be supplemented
                                                                          with residual areas making them very close to achieving the required residual landscape pattern.” Please remove the words “it is
                                                                          expected that”. Also please further explain what is meant by “very close”.
 445 KR         2          1                 Table 2 and 3   NDPE         I’m somewhat confused by Tables 2 and 3 in appendix 6B. There are many disturbances in Table 2 that have total targets that exceed
                                                                          what is currently mapped that do not appear in Table 3 (e.g. # 17 - 20.6 ha required only 8.5 ha mapped). It would be preferable to have
                                                                          another column with a footnote indicating why these individual disturbances don not require projected residual area. This relates
                                                                          somewhat with alteration #444. Providing such a column would satisfy #444.
 446 KR         1          197                               NDPE         The text (Individual Tree Retention) describes the requirements of the NDPEG but then simply states that “Trees to be left will be
                                                                          identified during harvest operation.” Please indicate clearly the minimal standards that will be followed and the considerations involved.
                                                                          See alteration # 442.




                                                                                     Page 17                                                                                                                              List of Required Alterations
ID     Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other           Topic                        Details


 253 CDC          5                            Road Sup Doc    Road Sup Doc                 it is good to see maps in road sup doc; alternatives need to be labeled (selected is shown, but for example Caribou road the other parts -
                                               M                                            which are alt 1 & alt 3); also AOC labeling is very hard to read due to overlaps & needs to be fixed such as by shortening/making font
                                                                                            smaller i.e. AOC#A2-05 should just be A2-05 particularly because these are not actually the AOC '#s' (i.e. WQcl is the identifier but A2-
                                                                                            05 is the 'location' of the AOC crossing; it is not a FMPM requirement that location of AOC crossings be shown on this map, since they
                                                                                            are required to be shown on areas selected for operations map for selected corridor; however, if they are included, needs to be
                                                                                            correct/readable; (do need a map to show alternative corridors with sup doc)
 254 CDC          5                            Road Sup Doc    Road Sup Doc                 All reclassified roads: why are maps showing 500m corridors while sup doc states only routine maintenance is expected therefore AOC
                                               M                                            planning is not required; if corridor is not to be approved then it can not be shown; if it is to be approved then check values maps & do
                                                                                            AOC planning for entire corridor for values; approval of corridor is approval to construct road anywhere in approved corridor; this is
                                                                                            consistent with operational planning training tab 6 slides 16 & 17
 359 MED          5                            Appendix M      Road Sup Doc                 In the environmental analysis section under "effects on other values" there are several references to MAFA in areas where deer are
                                                                                            being managed. Since it has been agreed, that no MAFA are required in deer management area, this reference should be deleted.

 508 GLH          5                            App M           Road Sup Doc                 Caribou and Roads Management: There is nothing stated in the draft as to what the roads management strategy will be in caribou
                                                                                            country relative to what the Guide recommends. Blocks/tracts I and J (Werner Lake Area and East of Routine Lake) are in the caribou
                                                                                            zone and beginning to be accessed. It is expected the tertiary and secondary roads will be active in there for a while. Please state what
                                                                                            is expected to occur to those roads, including any plans for rehabbing them into forest (e.g. tertiary road rehab, some secondary roads,
                                                                                            removal of water crossings or not, etc.) If the strategy is not yet figured out, we need to know that too. Please contact GH for
                                                                                            discussion as to text requirements.
     36 CES       1                                            SGR - Silvicultural Ground   Text on page 109 ln 29-38 is not consistent with text on page 114 ln 39-41 where 1500 well spaced stems per hectare has been set as
                                                               Rules                        the minimum acceptable standard for basic stocking. SGR's should state this.
     38 CES       1                                            SGR - Silvicultural Ground   SGR 1.01 needs to be removed from the SGR's as you have this covered on SGR footnote 3 and page 113, whereby an appropriate
                                                               Rules                        SGR will be selected based on the FU/site type encountered.
     68 CES       4                            Other forest    Sup Docs                     Plan is missing the SupDoc on 'Other forest resources' (FMPM A-138 , ln 7-14). Currently only the 'data gaps' are covered.
                                               resources
 128 CES          4                            LCC reports     Sup Docs                     While this report covers the agreement statement it is short on the other information as outlined in the FMPM (A-146 ln 38 to A-147 ln
                                                                                            4).
 595 IDP          4                            Sup Doc A       Sup Docs                     The changes/ updates to terms of reference must be included here (provided by MNR).
 143 CDC          4                            Sup Doc B       Sup Docs                     Sup Doc B List of Implementation Manuals: contents of this section does not meet FMPM pg A-138 line 3 requirements; remove what is
                                                                                            there & replace with 'List of Implementation Manuals which were used in preparation of the plan'; this was covered at FMP training,
                                                                                            including recent reviewers training; list there now is outdated (Sept 2003) & includes many documents that are not implementation
                                                                                            manuals (forest management guides)& many documents that would not have been used; use most recent list provided (Feb 2004) &
                                                                                            edit to list which guides were used
 144 CDC          4                            Sup Doc E       Sup Docs                     Sup Doc E: does not meet requirements of FMPM pg A-139 lines 21-23 'a summary of how results of any audits which have been
                                                                                            undertaken for MU, in particular independent audits, HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE FMP; was covered at FMP training; remove
                                                                                            this as it is just a photocopy of part of RPFO, with information not relevant to FMPM requirement (text, unrelated recommendations,
                                                                                            best practices), missing required information (how addressed in FMP) AND it is about 1991-98 audit period (which should have been
                                                                                            dealt with in previous 2001 plan); needs to include info about relevant results from 2004 audit (can be done without writing out R/S
                                                                                            specifically as report not yet public); is about 'results' so deal with R & S - use draft action plan as source of info; discuss with
                                                                                            reviewer/submit in advance of plan resubmission since missing in draft plan
 371 LOS          6                            road supp doc   Sup Docs                     In the "preventive/mitigative measures" section, you need to describe/detail the preventive and mitigative measures you will be taking
                                                                                            and not just refer to the Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings.
 495 SJD          4          1        41       Sup Doc G       Sup Docs                     Change text from "government to government negotiations must yield solutions to resolve these issues" to "Discussions and
                                                                                            negotiations between all parties will be required to resolve these issues."
 496 SJD          4          2        9        Sup Doc G       Sup Docs                     remove wording "primarily for moose"
 497 SJD          4          2        10       Sup Doc G       Sup Docs                     Change to read "to renew forests to younger age classes for the benefit of wildlife, forestry and fire have been identified as available
                                                                                            tools."




                                                                                                      Page 18                                                                                                                            List of Required Alterations
ID   Reviewer    Binder #   Page #   Line #   Other             Topic      Details


 498 SJD         4          2        24       Sup Doc G         Sup Docs   change text from "booming is not allowed" to "booming is not feasible"
 499 SJD         4          2        24       Sup Doc G         Sup Docs   indicate in text that an over water ice road option has been selected over a barging option
 500 SJD         4          3        18       Sup Doc G         Sup Docs   Text is beating around the bush. If you are going to indicate that crossing reserve land is an issue then you need to say why it is an
                                                                           issue.
 502 SJD         4                            Sup Doc H         Sup Docs   Included revised LCC statement of agreement/disagreement with FMP as amended and approved by LCC (to be provided by S. Duda)
                                                                           and include summary of LCC activities as developed and provided by LCC.
 503 SJD         4          2        2        Sup Doc G         Sup Docs   From PT-18 approved meeting minutes it was agreed "Regarding an interim Fire Strategy for the Aulneau Peninsula, Steve indicated
                                                                           that a 'Fire Priority' be set for the area. As well, in general, priority areas should be identified across the entire SFL for modified fire
                                                                           protection." Appropriate reflective text should be included.
 558 LOS         5                            Jadel creek rd.   Sup Docs   Please be consistent with respect to the distance from the road to the scoot river nesting site. In some cases it is referred to as 70m
                                                                           from center line and in other areas it state 50 m.
 560 LEH         4          1        15       Sup Doc G         Sup Docs   Global search and change Wabaseemoong First Nations to "Wabaseemoong Independent Nations"
 561 LEH         4          2        16       Sup Doc G         Sup Docs   Additional text on Aulneau First Nation consultation process to be inserted. Text to be supplied by Leo Heyens after confirmation with
                                                                           AKRC and Bimose Tribal Council
 563 IDP         4                            Sup Doc H         Sup Docs   For summary of public consultation sup doc, a brief summary of the information centres/ sessions will also need to be added. This is to
                                                                           mainly outline the dates, locations and attendance numbers. Ian Pyke (MNR) will provide this after the draft FMP info centre is held.

 567 IDP         4          2                 Sup Doc F         Sup Docs   Discussion of data gaps sup doc, page 2, road and water crossing inventory section - Significant work has taken place by MNR doing
                                                                           inventory work on roads and water crossings through the Forest roads and water crossings Initiative. This needs to be discussed here.
                                                                           MNR District can be contacted for further details. A discussion of the work done needs to be in the main text as well.

Reviewer's Names:
Ian Pyke - IDP
Lori Skitt - LOS
Ron Leekam - RLK
Mike Dawe - MED
Hassan Mohamed – HM
Leo Heyens - LEH
Steve Duda - SJD
Jamie Bonang - JBA
Chris Schaefer - CES
Cathy Cavalier - CDC
Glen Hooper - GLH
Kevin Ride - KR
Julie Sullivan - JAS
Londa Mortson - LDM
Pat Corbett - PMC
Rob Bowen - RCB




                                                                                      Page 19                                                                                                                             List of Required Alterations
                                                              Preliminary List of Required Alterations - Kenora Forest
                                                                    2006-2026 Kenora Forest Management Plan

ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Basemap #   Other            Topic     Details




 376 CES        1                                                FMP-2     No breakout for Crown Unmanaged? I suspect that this has been rolled into Parks as expressed in FMP-1a. Either report separately or
                                                                           change the header for FMP-2 to 'Crown Parks and Crown Unproductive' to cover off the requirements to report by each land ownership
                                                                           category in FMP-2. You may also want to check any text reporting of these results since parks productive is actually only 51,000 out of
                                                                           the 71,000.
 459 LDM        1                                                FMP-7     The following needs to be added to the right hand column:

                                                                           G2592 - "no new roads"

                                                                           G2603 - "only secondary roads and tertiary roads will be permitted"

                                                                           G2610 - "commercial timber harvest not permitted. No roads are permitted"

                                                                           G2550 - "Areas of concern to be established where appropriate. Resource access roads will be constructed as required in accordance
                                                                           with existing policy and in a manner which minimizes impact on recreational resources. Resulting road use will be controlled"

 111 CES        1                                                FMP-10    On ES 11/12 where mech. SIP is proposed I only see the CR noted for the SIP, while at the same time these sites are also identified as
                                                                           FT, TL, or CTL (e.g. SGR 3.10). You have noted this FT logging in your exceptions page and these need to be identified as exceptions
                                                                           in the SGR's (E in the P/E column).
 117 CES        1                                                FMP-10    Need to remove the natural depletion 'catch-all' SGR, as you have already noted the use of the appropriate SGR based on site
                                                                           conditions encountered.
 126 MED        1                               table 10         FMP-10    CMX 2.01STP ccOSOT. Without SIP this STP is highly unlikely to achieve PJP intensive 1 on these ES types. Especially on ES
                                                                           22,25,26,27,32.
                                                                           This approach could be achievable if SGR were separated by dry, fresh, moist ES types.
                                                                           This approach was agreed upon (Dawe Pyke Wilkie Lane) at a silvicultural task team meeting held on December 1/04. The SGR split
                                                                           was to occur as
                                                                           ES 11-16 dry
                                                                           ES 17-29 fresh
                                                                           30+     moist
 597 IDP        1                                                FMP-10    For SGRs where the future forest unit is PWD or PRW and intensive, there is a statement in the condition/ comment column, "Attempt to
                                                                           maintain an overstory for Pw protection." This needs to be reworded to clarify the intent as "attempt to maintain" is open to a lot of
                                                                           interpretation.
 316 MED        1                               table 10         FMP-10    There is no mention of slash pile burning in FMP 10 as part of the SGR treatments. I would suggest this be addressed as a foot note
                                                                           item.

 351 IDP        1                               FMP 10 foot notes FMP-10   Footnote # 5 in SGRs - just before the last sentence of the footnote, it states "see ground rules comment 15.1 - 15.4". This "15.1-15.4"
                                                                           is not in the main part of the SGRs nor in footnote # 15. This needs to be corrected. Also for this footnote # 5, the sentence starting
                                                                           "best management practices that result....." is incomplete and needs to be corrected.
 598 IDP        1                                                FMP-10    The silviculture guide states that seeding of Pj (artificial and natural) on ES 13 is recommended so this will have to be corrected for the
                                                                           condition/ comment for SGR 6.01 and 6.02.
 599 IDP        1                                                FMP-10    SGRs such as 6.02, 6.05 and 6.06 have natural seeding of Pj which on ES 11, 21, 22 and 24 is NR. This will have to be added in FMP-
                                                                           10 and the list of exceptions.
 110 CES        1                               FMP-13b          FMP-13    Numbers for objective 4c are missing for both KF2006 and SMAv10.
 247 CDC        1                                                FMP-17    FMP-17: revise to reflect alterations made in sup doc, as source of information for this table is AOC sup doc; in a number of AOCs
                                                                           conditions on roads have been incorrectly included in 'harvest, renewal &/or tending column'; this belongs in tertiary road conditions
                                                                           where applicable or if about primary/secondary roads this can be shown in P/S road box below (i.e. AOC BH1) (FMP-17 actually does
                                                                           not provide a place for conditions related to P/S roads, but typically this is shown in P/S roads box)




                                                                                                                             Page 20                                                                                     RA_Tables_Maps
ID     Reviewer   Binder   PageNumber   Basemap #   Other            Topic    Details




 248 CDC          1                                                  FMP-17   FMP-17 is selected & must be revised to match ALL AOC sup doc (source is sup doc, FMPM back of FMP-17 page A-90) i.e. AOC CHp
                                                                              does not match - last point in tertiary roads is NOT in sup doc, rest is missing; H, R, T is missing lots from sup doc including winter
                                                                              harvest, modified operational layout, harvest methods, mechanical SIP requires stage 2 assessment, etc.); i.e. AOC PL sup doc says no
                                                                              tertiary roads in reserve, but FMP-17 refers to 'approval from landowner'; i.e.. AOC MAcd & MAcl: where reserve measured from (edge
                                                                              of standing timber over 3m tall) is in error/does not match sup doc (defined as woody vegetation greater than 3m tall); 'standing timber' is
                                                                              NOT the same as 'woody vegetation'; AOC N: tertiary roads does not match sup doc, has part III but no P/S road on FMP-17; AOC ONh
                                                                              tertiary roads do not match
 250 CDC          1                                                  FMP-17   AOC N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, N6, ON3, ON4 (also refer to ID#247, 248): remove word 'exceptions' from monitoring program, since this is not
                                                                              an exceptions monitoring program, but special monitoring program as condition of allowing road
 251 CDC          1                                                  FMP-17   further to ID#248 source for FMP-17 is sup doc & these must match: i.e. AOC TVa tertiary roads cross references to TVae in FMP-17,
                                                                              however, this is not in sup doc & therefore needs to be removed from FMP-17; all conditions on tertiary roads in TVa go in that sup doc &
                                                                              then onto FMP-17; TVae values include 'ice road entrance' which is not shown in values in sup doc; TVat tertiary roads refers to
                                                                              'Aulneau Wildlife Plan' which is NOT in sup doc & is missing what is in sup doc (tertiary road construction permitted between Oct 31-May
                                                                              14); H, R, T column incorrectly includes conditions on roads; TVr1, TVr2, TVr4, TVr5, TVt, TVt1, TVt2 tertiary road conditions do not
                                                                              match; TVr3 reserve does not match; WQcd, WQcl reserve does not match (part greater than slope) & tertiary roads missing most of
                                                                              sup doc conditions
 141 MED          1                                 table 21         FMP-21   FMP21 Forecast of Harvest Volume by species
                                                                              this table identified that there is a total of 21,201 m3 of "other conifer" forecasted to be harvested. What is this species and is this
                                                                              accurate? There is no text that describes FMP 21.
 349 IDP          1                                 Tables FMP-23,   FMP-23   Tables FMP-23, 24, and 27 identified that there is a total of 21,201 m3 of "other conifer" forecasted to be harvested. This should be listed
                                                    24, 27                    under cedar if all or some of this volume is actually cedar.
 440 PMC          1                                                  FMP-24   FMP-24 must be revised to reflect the actual wording of the Minister's wood supply commitments and to add Devlin Timber to the list of
                                                                              mills. Please obtain a copy of the revised table from Ian Pyke or Pat Corbett
     89 CES       1                                                  FMP-25   Revised table that reflects text needs to submitted
     97 CES       1                                                  FMP-26   FMP-26 uses a term 'as required' to describe the planned maintenance. The activities need to be clearly documented and I would
                                                                              suggest a footnote is needed. I would also suggest the explanation build on the routine maintenance description in the EG for access
                                                                              roads and water crossings, and the text on page 213 (ln 27-32) be tied into this description. Also, note that footnote 2 has been
                                                                              truncated
 211 CDC          1                                 FMP-26           FMP-26   FMP-26 access control does not meet FMPM requirement by showing 'yes'; needs to be revised to meet FMPM pg A-124 'if applicable,
                                                                              enter a brief summary of type of access control (under Public Lands Act or any other form of regulation) which is planned by road during
                                                                              this term'; also abandonment if 'water crossing removal' is forecast this is to be identified by road
 354 MED          1                                 FMP 26           FMP-26   FMP 26 Abandonment section. It is no longer acceptable to use "natural abandonment" as identified in McColm FRWCI report.
 578 IDP          1                                                  FMP-27   Chemical site prep is forecast in FMP-25 so table FMP-27 will have to show expenditures under chemical site prep to reflect this.

  54 CES          2                                 Map 8.1          MAPS     Map 8.1 only identifies 'harvest' in the title block. Since 8.1a/8.1b do not exist in the plan this title should be updated.
 129 CES          4                     154105470                    MAPS     Comments on the sample map provide for review:
                                                                              1) Caution on the use of 'proposed' in the legend, as this will need to be changed for the final plan.
                                                                              2) Patent land band across water?
                                                                              3) Missing road names to tie in road SupDoc?
                                                                              4) AOC's over Patent Land?
                                                                              5) Where Longpoint Road crosses AOC#E1-02 the corridor needs to be reduced to 100m. In fact AOC #E1-02 does not exist (i.e. No
                                                                              AOC E1) and you actually have a crossing of AOC N2 and a crossing of AOC ON3 and both of these need to be shown and correctly
                                                                              identified on the maps with the associated 100m corridor. See CDC comments 255 and 256 for further details.




                                                                                                                                Page 21                                                                                      RA_Tables_Maps
ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Basemap #        Other           Topic    Details




 130 CES        4                   153805550                        MAPS     Comments on the sample map provide for review:

                                                                              1)why are existing road crossings on existing roads flagged with both orange shading (no-cut reserve?) and crosshatching (potential
                                                                              tertiary road crossing?)?
 131 CES        4                   153405520                        MAPS     Comments on the sample map provide for review:
                                                                              1) access to block 492 is not apparent, since it looks like access would need to go across CH AOC's. Was this missed.
                                                                              2) Is harvest of the CH AOC proposed in the top and east side of Block 495 - green overlaps the CH AOC. If so can the operator tell that
                                                                              the modified conditions on harvest are different between these areas and the remainder of the block (which is also subject to a modified
                                                                              operation). I only see the TVt AOC identified under the Block number. Perhaps another shading of Green may help (Just a suggestion
                                                                              ... )
 255 CDC        3                                    Appendices      MAPS     Appendix 9 Maps: need to ensure AOC identifiers are clear & can be read; noticed maps have both AOC identifier & a number such as
                                                                              BH-37733-5639; as a reminder FMPM only requires that the 'identifier' used in sup doc/FMP-17 (such as BH) be labeled to link the
                                                                              maps, FMP-17 & AOC sup doc (FMPM pg A-87 lines 34-37); these other numbers are not required & are extra; just mentioning this as in
                                                                              some areas this label overlaps & cannot be read; also 'high potential cultural heritage' label in legend must have the AOC identifier
                                                                              added beside it 'CHp' in order to link to FMP 17/sup doc, since each location is not labeled with CHp; also 100m AOC crossing legend
                                                                              shows 'AOC#A2-18' need to remove 'AOC' part, since AOC# is unique identifier on sup doc & FMP-17 (i.e. CHp), this is just crossing #
                                                                              of that AOC
 256 CDC        3                                    Appendices      MAPS     Appendix 9 Maps: 154105470: (also refer to ID#255) road corridor shows AOCE1-02, but there is no such AOC identifier; road name
                                                                              missing; need to have actual AOC identifier recognized, this is how FMPM requires link with FMP-17 & sup doc & is where part III is
                                                                              located; there is the identifier & then the crossing; also as labeled/mapped the actual 'crossing location' is difficult to find; discuss with
                                                                              reviewer
 319 JAS        1                                                    MAPS     The Operations overview map (8.1) does not show the Woodland Caribou Park addition at Sydney Lake. At least 200m from the
                                                                              shoreline of Sydney is in the FMU. Change the maps to show this recommended protected area. Even though the area is not regulated,
                                                                              it is to be treated as provincial park land in accordance with Interim Protection Guidelines. Other protected areas that are not regulated
                                                                              yet are shown on these maps, therefore change it to show the Sydney Lake area.

 320 JAS        1                                                    MAPS     Eagle-Dogtooth PP and the mainland portion of Sable Island PP are not shown on the Operations Overview map (8.1) even though they
                                                                              are immediately adjacent to the FMU boundary. Change the map to show these protected areas.
 321 JAS        1                                                    MAPS     Unregulated OLL sites (including the Woodland Caribou PP addition at Sydney Lake) are not shown on the Values maps. Change the
                                                                              maps to show the unregulated OLL protected areas.
 347 HM         1                                                    MAPS     Some inconsistency between BlockID#, AOCID# and Stand listing e.g.. Block# 368 should read 378 for AOCID#MAcl-3650_5700 and
                                                                              MAcl-3655_5702. Please reconcile all these inconsistency.
 352 HM         1                   153805540                        MAPS     Missing Block ID for PolyID #644_381378_5542133. Please correct
 372 LOS        MAP                 350556                           MAPS     An identified bald eagle nest (2005) has not been indicated or buffered near the Caribou Falls bridge crossing. Please include 359192
                                                                              5568598
 466 IDP        MAPS                39 555, 40 554                   MAPS     Map 39 555 is missing the location of the Minnesabik tree improvement area. Map 40 554 is missing the location of the Fifth Creek tree
                                                                              improvement area. Also needs to be added to map legend. Any other areas of tree improvement operations will need to be on the
                                                                              operational maps as per FMPM.
 509 JBA        MAPS                34550                            MAPS     Labeling on all maps needs to be looked at to prevent overlapping i.e. block 490 label and AOC identifier are not legible.
 510 JBA        MAPS                355470                           MAPS     Block 504 no AOC is mapped on permanent stream. Also legend feature, line type and color for Stream/River vs intermittent differs from
                                                                              the map. (Legend sold blue, map has dotted blue line). Intermittent stream feature in legend is very similar to stand boundaries, needs
                                                                              to be improved. Legend, Depletion type Modified (timing /roads) vs Park /Conservation Reserve are also very similar and need to be
                                                                              improved.
 512 LOS        4                                    Feature Value map MAPS   The values maps need to include updated NDD data. There are several sensitive nest locations that were found this past winter that do
                                                                              not show up on the Feature Values Map
 514 LOS        MAPS                390558                           MAPS     Missing BE nest on SW end of Fletcher Lake...will impact renewal/maintenance block




                                                                                                                                Page 22                                                                                        RA_Tables_Maps
ID     Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Basemap #   Other   Topic    Details




 515 LOS          MAP                 390553              MAPS     Please indicate exact nest location when the nest impacts either block harvest, road construction or renewal/maintenance. (block 455)

 516 LOS          MAP                 380555              MAPS     operational maps
                                                                   block 415, two BE nests not buffered for, both on south end of block, would also impact on maintenance/renewal block 38.
                                                                   block 419, BE nest on Green Island, may impact block depending on line of site.
 521 LOS          MAPS                370555              MAPS     Some maps have blocks labeled twice (e.g.. block 76). Please fix to limit confusion on maps.
 522 LOS          MAPS                370555              MAPS     Some blocks are not labeled completely (cut-off at the edge of map). Please ensure that all blocks are labeled fully on each basemap.
                                                                   (e.g.. block SE of basemap 370555)
 526 LOS          MAPS                360554              MAPS     all block labeled twice. Please fix.
 529 JBA          6          1        35550       WQcl    MAPS     As described in the AOC identifier WQcl the reserve starting at the high water mark as determined by the presence of woody vegetation
                                                                   including alder and willow, according to slope.
                                                                   AOC's on the map show buffering from the centre of the stream/river. Although this buffering technique allows for mapping ease
                                                                   operations should be reflective of the text. Also in the description in Part 2-prescription (wqcl). "The actual reserve width will be as
                                                                   mapped". This should not read "as mapped" Remove this line.
 530   JBA        MAPS                345510              MAPS     Remove secondary road corridor in the NE portion of block 189 north of water crossing AOC, as the bridge is already removed.
 531   JBA        MAPS                345520              MAPS     Where to access block 492, AOC is needed. BHr (AOC) identifier not listed for description of value.
 532   LOS        MAPS                340547              MAPS     block not labeled N of block 498
 534   JBA        MAPS                355530              MAPS     How to access block 337, 336, 335. Where is the crossing location between block 336 and 337.
 535   JBA        MAPS                345540              MAPS     Some harvest blocks that take up more than one basemap do not have labels for block numbers. Also when comparing basemaps
                                                                   there seems to be scale differences.
 536 LOS          MAPS                350554              MAPS     block to the N of block 329 not labeled.
 545 JBA          MAPS                385540              MAPS     Block near little sand lake (southwest corner) that has no block number
 549 JBA          MAPS                385560              MAPS     water crossing to block to access renewal/maintain blocks. Three crossings not identified west of block 413.
                                                                   Basemap 395560, 395570 and 385570 have water crossings not identified.
 551 JBA          MAPS                425440              MAPS     block 215 ?? no depletion type or boundary
 557 JBA          MAPS                355550              MAPS     Poplar narrows on the Winnipeg river has a blue line (river/stream) across it. (mapping error)

                                                                   Also basemap 415520 crystal bay on Silver Lake is not colored properly should be cold water fishery.
 517   LOS        MAPS                380554              Values   No block number on block south west of block 439.
 518   LOS        MAP                 380553              Values   BE nest north of RW track may impact road corridor required to access blocks 444 and 445.
 523   LOS        MAPS                370553              Values   BE nest not buffered for, SW corner of basemap for maintenance/renewal block.
 524   LOS        1                                       Values   All nests that are not currently accounted for on values maps will require the appropriate text in supp doc, FMP 17 and AOC
                                                                   prescriptions.
 525   LOS        MAPS                360555              Values   block 359....N end of block requires a water quality buffer. BE nest S of block not buffered for.
 528   LOS        MAPS                                    Values   All crossings within cut blocks must be indicated on maps with AOC ID.
 533   LOS        MAPS                350551              Values   BE nest not accounted for in the building of road to block 493. Based on the map, the road will go right through the nest area.
 537   LOS        4                   350554              Values   block 331, N-3513_5414 does not appear on values map and needs to be accounted for.
 540   LOS        MAPS                430546              Values   No BE buffer at the N end of Flint Lake
 542   LOS        MAPS                                    Values   Block 601...please address BE nest (how far is block from nest...400m???)
 544   LOS        MAPS                                    Values   Please indicate all crossing AOC's on map in renewal/maintenance blocks.
 546   LOS        MAPS                440547              Values   Missing BE buffer on maintenance/renewal block (Atikwa River NE of Eliza lk.)
 547   LOS        MAPS                450545              Values   Osprey nest not indicated/buffered for in maintenance/renewal block 306 (N of Allan Lk.)
 548   LOS        MAPS                450546              Values   Missing BE nest on E of Shingwak lk, N of block 601. Will impact block harvest.
 550   LOS        MAPS                400551              Values   Heronry not buffered which will impact almost the entire block 472.
 552   LOS        MAPS                410551              Values   BE nest not buffered in maintenance/renewal block 125.
 554   LOS        MAPS                410553              Values   creek AOC needed on NE side of block 467




                                                                                                                    Page 23                                                                                   RA_Tables_Maps
ID   Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Basemap #   Other                Topic         Details




 555 LOS        MAPS                420544                           Values        BE nest not buffered for in block 174 (maintenance/renewal)
 573 LOS        4                               discussion of data   Values        Habitat Matrices and guidelines....
                                                gaps                               I do not know what you mean by "alternative prescriptions have been developed in this plan to protect values....." As far as I am aware,
                                                                                   we have not strayed from the guidelines unless the BE nests falls outside of harvest/tending/renewal blocks. Could you please alter the
                                                                                   wording in this section so that it does not sound like we have created our own prescriptions to allow for additional harvest. I'll help you
                                                                                   come up with something.
 456 GLH        2                               Appendix 6C          Wildlife/Core App 6C Marten Analysis: No problem with the strategic decisions or the explanation in the text. Good job. However the documentation
                                                                     Marten        needs some revisions. Please add the 10% Goal on page 3 alongside the 20% goal. Maps: The 81/2 x 11 maps are a little too small,
                                                                     Habitat Area and the legends unreadable. All the maps should have the black line boundaries for water turned off when reduced on 8 1/2 x 11. The 8
                                                                                   1/2 x 11 maps, (when enlarged and refined), are good. However we need at least one large fold out unit map showing: current
                                                                                   suitability, or suitability at year 5, or suitability at year 20 (your choice), with the 5 year harvest allocations overlain transparently, and
                                                                                   outlines of the selected cores with some indication of their deferral vintage. Stats tables: Under the Good and Fair columns, please
                                                                                   replace the % value with the actual hectares. The good/fair total percentage column is OK. Suggest adding a column for total hectares
                                                                                   of good+fair. Not sure what "age OK" column is? Please define in a footnote. You may not need it anyway. Please contact GH if there
                                                                                   are any questions.




                                                                                                                                      Page 24                                                                                        RA_Tables_Maps
ID         Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #            Basemap #   Other


                                                                                      Type    Topic                              Details
      31 CES          1          98       32                                          Comment 2.3.3 Management Alternatives      This strategy is interesting given the extremely low past utilization on the forest - and I will be looking to see how this strategy is delivered in the plan.
      51 CES          1          73       1                                           Comment 2.3 Strat. Direction & Determ of   Not to take anything away from the remainder of the plan text, but the layout and documentation in Section 2.3 is excellent.
                                                                                              Sust
     105 MED          1          108      6                                           Comment 2.3.3 Management Alternatives      Silvicultural Exceptions.
                                                                                                                                 Seeding on ES 17,23,24,27,28,29,30,32,33. On the Kenora Forest the chances of success for seed conifer on these sites is very limited, especially ES 27 to 33. Company
                                                                                                                                 should review and justify this strategy.
     106 MED          1          109      23-24                                       Comment 2.3.3 Management Alternatives      Silvicultural Intensity Options by FU.
                                                                                                                                 The plan suggests that access is a default to applying and extensive treatments. Access or lack of should not be the driver to identify treatments. Example being, all
                                                                                                                                 operations on the WC4 would be extensive due to the fact there are no all weather roads. This should be reworded.
     113 MED          1          114      27                                          Comment 2.3.3 Management Alternatives      Is correct? or should is be reworded to indicate it's 4 years after the original regeneration treatment.
     114 MED          1          114      38-41                                       Comment 2.3.3 Management Alternatives      Re; target density levels. This need to be better explained and defined. I would suggest that there is a range based on intensity
                                                                                                                                 e.g.. extensive 1200-1500 stems/ha
                                                                                                                                    basic 1500-2000 stems/ha
                                                                                                                                    intensive 2000-3500 stems/ha
                                                                                                                                 On sites that have a wide range of mix species there need to be a relationship back to the desire density of each species not a catch all for all species.

     124 MED          1                                                 table 10      Comment FMP-10                             CMX SGR 2.01 Why did the Company select an exception (NR) for both the preferred and second order selection of STP and not a CR or R prescription?

     157 HM           1          199      24                                          Comment 2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew &    Consider using a table that compares average species comp, stocking, and site class of the harvest areas with the entire forest as part of the explanation of volume
                                                                                              Tend                               differences on FMP-20.
     191 IDP          1          44       23, 24                                      Comment 2.2.2 Forest Description           For the variance in land base from the 2001 to 2006 FMP, the OLL areas wouldn't really apply to this as they were already taken out of the landbase available for harvest in
                                                                                                                                 the 2001 FMP.
     197   IDP        1          60       13-19 and 34-38                             Comment   2.2.2 Forest Description         Lines 13 to 19 and 34 to 38 on page 60 seem to be making the same general points. Could these portions of text be combined together?
     266   IDP        1          104      19- 21                                      Comment   2.3.3 Management Alternatives    Shouldn't it be referenced in this section the work of the forest unit analysis done in appendix 8B?
     281   IDP        1          114      27, 33                                      Comment   2.3.3 Management Alternatives    Good to see statements are there that a survey or assessment will be done after a certain number of years.
     282   IDP        1          114      37                                          Comment   2.3.3 Management Alternatives    Isn't individual tree growth still a function of soils and site as well?
     300   IDP        1          151      32-35                                       Comment   2.3.5 Selection of MA            Need to further discuss the amount or percent of reduction in land base to explain that the loss overall is relatively small. If it's being looked at as a proportion of the area of
                                                                                                                                 total productive land base.
     315 MED          1                                                 FMP 10        Comment FMP-10                             Foot note #8 Sensitive Sites...the foot note talks about the use of "high flotation equipment" currently there are not operator on the Kenora Forest equipped with high
                                                                        foot notes
                                                                                                                                 floatation equipment. So the only operation available on sensitive sites (both shallow soil and deep organic) would be winter operations. This foot note needs to be reworded.
     323 IDP          1          161      11-31                                       Comment 2.3.8 Primary Road Corridors       This list of roads is different from the list on page 15. Suggest making these 2 lists the same. Also should Snook Road be on the list as it is proposed for abandonment?

     329 IDP          1          165      25, 26                                      Comment 2.4.2 Selection of Areas of        It states on page 166 that generally these criteria are listed in order of preference. So why would number 6 be a lower priority than number 3? Isn't it a higher or at least
                                                                                              Operations                         equal priority?
     348 LOS          1          24       23                                          Comment 2.2.2 Forest Description           Harvest blocks were small relative to what? current harvesting methods?
     363 IDP          1          204      24                                          Comment 2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew &    Devlin is missing from the list of mills on line 24 and from the number of mills in line 36. It is also not added into the volume on line 42.
                                                                                              Tend
     368 MED          1          163      24-27                                       Comment 2.4.2 Selection of Areas of        Kudos to the company if this was actually done...if not please reword.
                                                                                              Operations
     390 RLK          1                                     153805550   Map 8.1       Comment MAPS                               There appears to be a slight encroachment of a private land into the very south end of Big Sand Lake Conservation Reserve. Please confirm?
                                                                        Areas
                                                                        Selected
                                                                        for Harvest
                                                                        Operations
     391 GLH          1          0        0                                           Comment MAPS                               On the CD, the PDF of Map 8.1 "Areas Selected for Harvest Operations", is very difficult to open on my computer (512 RAM). The refresh rate in Adobe is very slow.

                                                                                                                                 Impossible to print from my computer. My computer is older, so no doubt that is a problem. But wondering if the file size can be reduced without losing resolution?
     407 SJD          1          13       44                                          Comment 2.1 Introduction                   The FMP notes 116 invitations for RSA were sent w/ 28 positive responses.

                                                                                                                                 Not all of the establishments invited were on the MTR list of licensed RBT operators but were known to be established tourism operations.

                                                                                                                                 Furthermore, April 18, 2005 e-mail (Wilkie to Cameron, MTR) indicated 110 invitations, 25 declaring interest in negotiating.




                                                                                                                                              Page 25                                                                                                                                                                   Comment
ID       Reviewer   Binder #   Page #     Line #   Basemap #   Other    Type    Topic                                 Details
      31 CES        1          98         32                            Comment 2.3.3 Management Alternatives         This strategy is interesting given the extremely low past utilization on the forest - and I will be looking to see how this strategy is delivered in the plan.
     409 SJD        1          14         4                             Comment 2.1 Introduction                      The FMP indicates of the 28 RBT operators interested in negotiating an RSA, they were "further refined" and lists only 9 operators as approaching RSA signing. Is it correct
                                                                                                                      that from the 116 invitations, only 9 RSA's will be signed? Text should state this more directly if it is the case.
     411 SJD        1          70         32                            Comment 2.2.3 Social and Economic             This entire section makes several statements beyond that of an FMP and the expertise of the Planning Team and should likely have references (e.g. The lower Cdn dollar
                                                                                Description                           and the US recovery continues to bolster the tourism industry in Kenora but may be slightly offset by declining tourism since Sept 11th)
     423 IDP        1          200        29, 30                        Comment 2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew &       The text refers to "red and white pine if utilized". Please explain the wording on "if utilized" as other parts of the plan refer to all volume being utilized.
                                                                                Tend
     455 IDP        1          207, 208   12, 13                        Comment 2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Renew &       Since the other forest units receiving treatments in FMP-25 are discussed on pages 207 and 208, the UCB forest unit should be discussed as well.
                                                                                Tend
     476 IDP        1          218        14                            Comment 2.4.5 Access Roads                    Please clarify what "identified" means. Is it saying that the same measures will be applied to a trail that is identified during plan implementation? Same comment for page
                                                                                                                      216, line 43.
     480 IDP        1                                                   Comment FMP-25                                The SPU forest unit has no natural regeneration forecast but there are SGRs for SPU natural regeneration. Also there is no artificial regeneration for UCB forest unit?

     481 IDP        MAPS                           44 545               Comment MAPS                                  For the southern end of contingency block 683, consider adding an AOC reserve for the other piece of patent land.
     490 SJD        1          175        34                            Comment 2.6 Documentation                     The FMP notes 116 invitations for RSA were sent w/ 28 positive responses. April 18, 2005 e-mail (Wilkie to Cameron, MTR) indicated 110 invitations, 25 declaring interest in
                                                                                                                      negotiating.
     494 SJD        4          1          25                   Sup Doc G Comment   Sup Docs                           Indication if the Wabaseemoong values have been included (and how) should be made in this section of text and on the appropriate values maps.
     501 SJD        4          3          8                    Sup Doc G Comment   Sup Docs                           Too many points in this paragraph. Each individual issue should be broken out and discussed separately.
     506 SJD        6                                          Sup Doc O Comment   Sup Docs                           Blocks 458 (156ha) and 586 (120 ha) are "near" the Dalles and Whitefish Bay First Nations, respectively. These blocks may be perceived as not being consistent with the
                                                                                                                      strategy to "allocate smaller blocks near communities."
     511 IDP        1          177        43, 44                        Comment    2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations The outbreak of jack pine budworm south of the Kenora forest and edging into the forest should be mentioned here.

     513   LOS      MAPS                           390555               Comment    MAPS                               There are several blocks that have been indicated as harvested that will not be harvested this year. This will need to be addressed in the AWS.
     519   LOS      MAPS                           380553               Comment    Values                             Block 442, why does the same BE nest have 2 separate codes? N 3840_5380 and N 3851_5379?
     520   LOS      MAPS                           380550               Comment    MAPS                               blocks 135 and 136 not yet harvested but indicated that they have been
     527   LOS      MAPS                           360553               Comment    MAPS                               is cut block NW of block 343 considered block 343 or another separate block?
     538   JBA      MAPS                           355540               Comment    MAPS                               Block 331 on the North east side has a no cut reserve which joins adjacent block boundary. How to harvest area isolated from the block.

                                                                                                                      Band of hatching "Depletion type modified" (timing/roads) across entire basemap, printing error.
     539 JBA        MAPS                           355580               Comment MAPS                                  red hatch looks like potential tertiary water crossing through entire base map (printing error) without black border like in the legend.
     543 JBA        MAPS                           375540               Comment MAPS                                  Block 428, how to access the north portion across from wetland?
                                                                                                                      Also on basemap 385530 how to access block 442 (Railway crossing)?

     556 LOS        MAPS                           420547               Comment Values                                BE N6- 4206_4746...how large of an area was buffered....a minimum of 400m?
     575 LOS        1                                                   Comment Values                                NDPEG,
                                                                                                                      Matt/Bob,
                                                                                                                      At the AWS stage, we will need to get together and assess each block that requires additional residual so that it jives with the moose guidelines and the intent of NDPEG.
                                                                                                                      The current text is good and refers to this. It is noted that you have also provided a list with each stand that requires additional residual.




                                                                                                                                   Page 26                                                                                                                                                           Comment
ID         Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Basemap #   Other      Type        Topic                         Details


       9   CES        1          V                                        Editorial   1.0 Approval and Contents     suggest inserting 'species' after the word 'bird' at the end of the first sentence in the road construction reporting(1.2).
      11   CES        1          14       11                              Editorial   2.1 Introduction              Sentence seems to be missing a word. Perhaps 'prescriptions' after AOC?
      16   CES        1          44       27                              Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description      The word 'unit' is missing after 'forest'.
      19   CES        1          61       8                               Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description      Is this second 10 year period not 1991-2001?
      27   CES        1          84       33                              Editorial   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning    The Sup Doc should only contain a summary of how the recommendations have been addressed, not the audit itself. Please replace 'a copy of the audit ...'
                                                                                      Context                       with 'A summary of how the audit recommendations have been addressed in the plan ...'
      28 CES          1          85       13-16                           Editorial   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning    Sentence is incomplete
                                                                                      Context
      39 CES          1          111      33                              Editorial   2.3.3 Management              Can't find this SGR in FMP-10?
                                                                                      Alternatives
      41 CES          1          135      12-13                           Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs         duplicate sentence to remove
      42 CES          1          145      3                               Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs         'Housing values increased from the present .... to ...'
      45 CES          1          158      32-42                           Editorial   2.3.7 Eligibility             Is it intended to have the exact same lower operability limits for caribou and non-caribou blocks? If so OK, but I wanted to check, since two columns are not
                                                                                                                    usually used.
      46 CES          1          160      24                              Editorial   2.3.7 Eligibility             Suggest reworking the phrase 'At this time ...'
      49 CES          1          162      21-23                           Editorial   2.4.1 Introduction            Suggest this sentence needs to be revised (incomplete and I understand you do not have new primary roads in this FMP).
      50 CES          1          162      28-32                           Editorial   2.4.1 Introduction            Suggest these sentences should be deleted as they speak to balancing details, and not 'introductory comments'. Perhaps this should be place with 2.4.7
                                                                                                                    discussion.
      52 CES          1          167      18                              Editorial   2.4.2 Selection of Areas of   'minor under allocation'
                                                                                      Operations
      57 CES          1          170      24-25                           Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for       text block seems out of place.
                                                                                      Operations
     590 IDP          1          173      38, 39                          Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for
                                                                                      Operations                    The sentence doesn't follow where it says "operations outside of operations". Suggest this needs rewording.
      60 CES          1          177      32-37                           Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for       I would suggest that given that you have not proposed PB's or aerial spray this text needs to be updated.
                                                                                      Operations
      63 CES          1          179      11                              Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for       suggest 'will be developed' instead of 'will be varied, and will be re-examined.'
                                                                                      Operations
      75 CES          1          195      21-26                           Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,       Sentences (line 21 through line 25) are duplicate to pg 194 line 41-42 and can be removed.
                                                                                      Renew & Tend
      84 CES          1          202      36                              Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,       not 'allocated', but perhaps 'considered for allocation ...'
                                                                                      Renew & Tend
      87 CES          1          206      7                               Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,       Table needs to be introduced (FMP-25)
                                                                                      Renew & Tend
      91 MED          1          102      26                              Editorial   2.3.3 Management              Typo on line 26 reads "round rule". It should read ground rule.
                                                                                      Alternatives
      94 MED          1          94       25                              Editorial   2.3.3 Management              typo...line 25 NDPE..should this not read NDPEG.
                                                                                      Alternatives
      95 CES          1          212      6                               Editorial   2.4.5 Access Roads            Are all the areas with tertiary road conditions actually shown as modified harvest, or is it that the conditions have been portrayed on the ASFO maps.

      96 CES          1          213      14                              Editorial   2.4.5 Access Roads            'Only the selected corridor is shown ... '
      99 CES          1          217      23-25                           Editorial   2.4.5 Access Roads            Suggest this text also acknowledge the requirements regarding this (new values, change in crossing location or conditions, etc.) under the FMPM(2004).

     102 CES          1          218      9                               Editorial   2.4.5 Access Roads            '... and maintained ...'
     103 CES          1          218      25                              Editorial   2.4.5 Access Roads            Text is dated and '... at this point' should be replace by something like '... in this FMP'
     107 CES          1          223      32                              Editorial   2.4.7 Comparison of Harv,     Text still refers to old FMP-25. 16,855 ha is projected for treatment (109%) in the new FMP-25.
                                                                                      Renew & Tend to SMA
     109 CES          1          228      35                              Editorial   2.4.7 Comparison of Harv,     I think the 2% volume loss should be 10% as discussed earlier in the plan text, unless this is referring to something else. If this is something else it will need
                                                                                      Renew & Tend to SMA           to described/explained.
     116 CES          1          234      3-6                             Editorial   2.5 Monitoring and            Suggest this sentence be reworked.
                                                                                      Assessment
     314 MED          1                                        table 10   Editorial   FMP-10                        SGR 10.03 and 10.04 ...under regeneration standards, needs a line to separate the two SGRs.
     119 CES          1                                                   Editorial   FMP-10                        Note that the comments in SGR 2.01 do not apply to this SGR as these ES are not represented. Also these comments/conditions are going to be needed
                                                                                                                    on each SGR where they do apply. Also, I see that you have SGR's for both OHW and UCB and I question if these are necessary since you do not have a
                                                                                                                    forecasted harvest area in these FU's (carryover treatments?)
     596 IDP          1                                                   Editorial   FMP-10                        Typo in the word "condition" in the column header/title on all pages.




                                                                                                                                            Page 27                                                                                                                                      Editorial
ID         Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #    Basemap #   Other         Type        Topic                        Details


     120 CES          2                                         Compliance    Editorial   Appendices                   Note that the first and last page of the Compliance Plan contain FMP headers and content not associated with the compliance plan itself, and this should be
                                                                plan                                                   removed.
     122 CES          1          9-10                                         Editorial   -                            Need to correct binder references for final plan, especially if a number of the appendices and SupDoc's are placed on CD. Also, note that this listing may
                                                                                                                       need to be customized for some locations
     127   CES        4                                         Plan review   Editorial   Sup Docs                     I do not see a SupDoc tab for plan review and approval documentation.
     134   IDP        1          VI       5                                   Editorial   1.0 Approval and Contents    Suggest adding that Matt was also TJ planning forester up until spring (April or May?) 2005
     137   IDP        1          VI       13, 17 and 20                       Editorial   1.0 Approval and Contents    Add "Independent Nations" to Wabaseemoong and "First Nation" to Wauzhusk Onigum in listing of team members.
     139   IDP        1          VII      25                                  Editorial   1.0 Approval and Contents    Change name of Henry's affiliation from cottagers to "Lake of the Woods district property owners association".
     156   CDC        1          10       8                                   Editorial   1.0 Approval and Contents    re binder#4: actual label on binder is 'Appendices A-L', but this needs to be revised to 'Sup Doc A-L' to match pg 10; also binder #6 is labeled as Appendices
                                                                                                                       N-O, this needs to be 'Sup Doc N-O' to match pg 10; pg 10 line 30-41 shows binder #7 but this information is in binder#6
     166 CDC          1          172      14                                  Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for      name of Heron Guide is incorrect; revise to 'Management Guidelines for THE PROTECTION OF Heronries in Ontario'
                                                                                          Operations
     171   IDP        1          11       34                                  Editorial   2.1 Introduction             Add Redditt to the list of communities.
     174   IDP        1          13       43                                  Editorial   2.1 Introduction             Suggest changing the start of sentence "Following the RSA process..." to "As per the RSA process....".
     175   IDP        1          15       5,6                                 Editorial   2.2.1 Administration         Change sentence to "The forest is administered as the Kenora West and Lake of the Woods areas..." instead of Kenora south.
     176   IDP        1          15       8-10                                Editorial   2.2.1 Administration         Figure 2 doesn't show wood receiving mills. The figure and text don't match.
     179   IDP        1          16       4, 9                                Editorial   2.2.1 Administration         The number of licencees is now 16 instead of 17.
     183   IDP        1          22       26                                  Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     Typo before "other working circles...". "That" was used instead of "than".
     184   IDP        1          24       6                                   Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     Please add the word "often" to "they were artificially...." to say "they were often artificially...."
     186   IDP        1          34       5                                   Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     A word appears to be missing between conservation reserves and EMA.
     187   IDP        1          35       32                                  Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     At start of Barren and scattered sentence, please add "In table FMP-2..." before barren and scattered.
     188   IDP        1          38       21                                  Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     At the end of the sentence, suggest changing it to "... within the last 20-25 years" to reflect the 1983 fires.
     190   IDP        1          44       22                                  Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     Was this meant to say FMP-1b instead of 1c or both? Table 1c has most of the explanations of variances.
     192   IDP        1          46       25-27                               Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     The sentence starting with "This methodology ..." doesn't follow. Please reword.
     193   IDP        1          47       22                                  Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     Add the word "almost" in front of "40% of the managed Crown land...."
     194   IDP        1          48       29                                  Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     This refers to section 2.3.5.5 but meant to say 2.3.5?
     195   IDP        1          50       2                                   Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     Section 2.3.4.2.3 should read 2.3.4.2
     196   IDP        1          51       22, 23                              Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description     Need commas or rewording in the first part of the sentence starting "Using FRI..."
     209   IDP        1          67       17-19                               Editorial   2.2.3 Social and Economic    Does the listing of communities in lines 17 to 19 need to match the listing in lines 25-27?
                                                                                          Description
     214 IDP          1          73       9-14, 24-30                         Editorial   2.3.1 Introduction           Lines 9-14 and 24-30 are quite similar to each other. Could one of these sets of lines be removed?
     218 CDC          1          107                                          Editorial   2.3.3 Management             header on pages 107 - 115 shows 'section 2.3.3.1' but this is in 'section 2.3.3.2.'
                                                                                          Alternatives
     223 IDP          1          84       4, 5                                Editorial   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   On lines 4 and 5 need to reword the part of the sentence on "... assisted the planning team manager....". It was meant to say plan author rather than
                                                                                          Context                      planning team manager?
     230 IDP          1          85       22                                  Editorial   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   This should say 1988 fire instead of 1998 fire.
                                                                                          Context
     232 IDP          1          87       10                                  Editorial   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   Consider using the word viewscapes instead of viewsheds.
                                                                                          Context
     233 IDP          1          87       41                                  Editorial   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   Remove "the" before Figure 2 in this sentence.
                                                                                          Context
     243 CDC          6                                         AOC Sup       Editorial   AOC Sup Doc                  AOC TVat & TVlp: FYI regional copy of plan had 5 copies of each of these AOC sup docs included, together
                                                                Doc N
     258 IDP          1          132      4                                   Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs        Line 4 appears to be missing the word "for" after the word "modeling".
     265 IDP          1          90       9-11                                Editorial   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt Planning   See alteration # 189 regarding the changes to the jack pine WG age class since the last plan.
                                                                                          Context
     270 IDP          1          107      30-32                               Editorial   2.3.3 Management             The numbered listing of objectives doesn't completely match with the word listing. Missing objective # 2 (age class) in the numbered listing and objective #
                                                                                          Alternatives                 4 (wood supply) is not a forest diversity objective.
     274 IDP          1          111      4                                   Editorial   2.3.3 Management             The text states "tending will be done when necessary." Later in this paragraph, the text describes this well in detail (when and in what situations tending will
                                                                                          Alternatives                 be done). Consider removing the "tending will be done when necessary" as this sentence doesn't seem necessary.
     283 IDP          1          116      9                                   Editorial   2.3.3 Management             The word "forest" appears twice.
                                                                                          Alternatives
     285   IDP        1          121      22                                  Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs        The section header/title for 2.3.4.7 seems to be missing at that part of the text (page 148, line 21). It is also missing in the table of contents.
     286   IDP        1          121      37-39                               Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs        The sentence starting "The selection of..." needs some rewording. Suggest removing the words "to meet their ability".
     287   IDP        1          124      19, 20                              Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs        Consider removing the names in brackets for the age class groups as calling 51 year old stands/ forest "mature" raises some questions.
     288   IDP        1          124      23, 24                              Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs        The text states "all alternatives maintain.... area within .... BNV....". Doesn't the values for the SMA go above the BNV at certain points? Mention of this
                                                                                                                       should be made as was done in lines 36 to 39 on the same page.




                                                                                                                                             Page 28                                                                                                                                      Editorial
ID         Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Basemap #   Other    Type        Topic                         Details


     289 IDP          1          127      8                             Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs         Regarding the sentence starting "For all other forest units...". It's not clear what the "other" is referring to. Suggest removing the word "other".
     291 IDP          1          128      23-25                         Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs         Suggest rewording this sentence for clarity by starting a new sentence at "other selected species" and adding "SMAv10 is" before "slightly more favourable".

     293 IDP          1          133      19                            Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs         Text refers to the previous inventory of 1977. Is the wrong year used here as a 1977 inventory does not sound familiar.
     294 IDP          1          143      20                            Editorial   2.3.3 Management              Line 20 - Add "million" to $5.8 at the end of the line.
                                                                                    Alternatives
     295 IDP          1          144      18                            Editorial   2.3.3 Management              Typo - the words "due the" should be changed to "due to the....".
                                                                                    Alternatives
     296 IDP          1          147      39, 40                        Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs         Please reword the end of the last sentence "for each FMP". The intent must have been to say for each phase or each phase of analysis as this work was
                                                                                                                  done within one FMP.
     297   IDP        1          150      32                            Editorial   2.3.5 Selection of MA         End of sentence on line 32 needs rewording. Must have meant to say "a better balance of target achievement than..."
     298   IDP        1          151      6                             Editorial   2.3.5 Selection of MA         Add that this information is also found in appendix 8A and 8I or just refer to simply appendix 8.
     299   IDP        1          151      10                            Editorial   2.3.5 Selection of MA         Reference should be to FMP 12 and 13 instead of FMP 11.
     301   IDP        1          154      34                            Editorial   2.3.6 AHA                     Typo- there's an extra zero in 342,400(0).
     302   IDP        1          156      26                            Editorial   2.3.6 AHA                     Typo in line 26 - "by as little as". Also this sentence doesn't quite seem to follow.
     303   IDP        1          156      29-31                         Editorial   2.3.6 AHA                     Typo - "is" missing at the start of line 30. Also please change "largest" to "larger" in line 31 as CMX and SPU are not the largest forest units harvest areas.

     305   IDP        1          157      24                            Editorial   2.3.6 AHA                     Used "and" instead of "the" in the middle of line 24.
     306   IDP        1          159      6                             Editorial   2.3.7 Eligibility             Text says "As discussed in section 2.3.4.1...". This isn't in that part of the text - was it meant to say "as discussed in the analysis package"?
     307   IDP        1          159      33                            Editorial   2.3.7 Eligibility             Suggest putting in "5 year" to change sentence to ".... for the 5 year term of this plan..."
     327   IDP        1          164      22                            Editorial   2.4.2 Selection of Areas of   Suggest rewording to "... that have previous nearby depletion..." for clarity.
                                                                                    Operations
     332 IDP          1          168      4- 6                          Editorial   2.4.2 Selection of Areas of   Line 4 - change last word to "approximately". Also on line 5 change wording to "....the maximum allowable amount of...."
                                                                                    Operations
     333 IDP          1          168      15                            Editorial   2.4.2 Selection of Areas of   Should read appendix 9 instead of 10.
                                                                                    Operations
     334 IDP          1          168      15                            Editorial   2.4.2 Selection of Areas of   Add after "there will be areas harvested" wording such as "in the 2001-06 FMP term" for clarity.
                                                                                    Operations
     336 IDP          1          173      6                             Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for       The listing of N1 to N6 is different here than the listing of the 1.2 table on page v at the front.
                                                                                    Operations
     337 IDP          1          175      34                            Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for       Similar to alteration # 174, suggest changing the start of sentence "Following the RSA process..." to "As per the RSA process....".
                                                                                    Operations
     339 IDP          1          179      7                             Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for       Please reword "the area of west of Sydney" to "the area west of Sydney Lake".
                                                                                    Operations
     340 IDP          1          179      31                            Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for       Typo in the word pattern.
                                                                                    Operations
     341 IDP          1          184      24                            Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,       Change map 8.1a to map 8.1.
                                                                                    Renew & Tend
     342 IDP          1          184      34                            Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,       This line references the wrong figure numbers.
                                                                                    Renew & Tend
     345 IDP          1          193      41                            Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,       Typo - wrong year is used, should not be 2019.
                                                                                    Renew & Tend
     346 IDP          1          194      30                            Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,       Typo - start of line 30 should say "separated an average of...."
                                                                                    Renew & Tend
     350 IDP          1                                        FMP-16   Editorial   FMP-16                        For UCB and OHW forest units, need to revise the entry on the bottom line of the table for "projected change". Please enter zero or perhaps "N/A" for these
                                                                                                                  2 columns.
     355 MED          1          220      20                            Editorial   2.4.5 Access Roads            Line 20 remove the word "Ministry"
     362 LOS          1          170      36                            Editorial   2.4 Operational Planning      the word "determined" should read "determine"
     387 RCB          1          124      17                            Editorial   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs         Is the reference supposed to be to FMP-12 or FMP-13 in this paragraph. Given the FMP-13 is the comparison table and the statement on lines 23-24 is
                                                                                                                  more correct for FMP-13. Please verify and correct if necessary. Same comment applies to Appendix 8D Page 5.
     395 GLH          1          55       16                            Editorial   Caribou                         Typo: Ontario Forest "Analysis". Should be "Analyst".
     398 GLH          1          62       18                            Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description      RE featured status of woodland caribou: As per earlier comment, the status for "featured" has changed to "provincially featured".




                                                                                                                                         Page 29                                                                                                                                    Editorial
ID         Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Basemap #   Other      Type        Topic                       Details


     399 GLH          1          63       3                               Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description    RE: Caribou nomenclature and status: This comment also refers to page 54-55: The nomenclature for the species and population name can be
                                                                                                                  confusing. So perhaps clear it up once in the text and then you can abbreviate it. Nationally the population listed by COSEWIC as "Threatened" is "Boreal
                                                                                                                  Population of Woodland Caribou". In Ontario the status is provincially "Threatened", and the official common name in the SARO list is "Woodland Caribou -
                                                                                                                  forest dwelling population". The Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Document (draft citing: "Ontario Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. 2004. Recovery
                                                                                                                  Strategy for Forest-dwelling Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Ontario. Species at Risk Section, Ontario Parks, Ministry of Natural
                                                                                                                  Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. XXpp."), is referring to the caribou in the Kenora FMU as "Forest-Dwelling Woodland Caribou". Please make reference
                                                                                                                  once to the official nomenclature, and then I suggest you can say something like: "from hereon in referred to as "caribou" or "woodland caribou". Another
                                                                                                                  footnote from the recovery strategy that might be useful to borrow is: "There are two ecotypes of caribou in Ontario: forest-dwelling and forest-tundra.
                                                                                                                  Forest-tundra caribou have been assessed as Not-at-Risk. Henceforward, the terms “woodland caribou” or “caribou” will refer to the forest-dwelling
     400 GLH          1          62       23                              Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description    The term "RVTE" has been updated for Ontario terminology. Species are listed on the SARO list (Special at Risk In Ontario). The category “vulnerable”
                                                                                                                  has been replaced with “special concern. “Rare" is a mix of several concepts. Provincial “S-ranks” are ranks for “rare” species, based on occurrence
                                                                                                                  records. S1 are “extremely rare”, S2 are “very rare”, and S3 are “rare to uncommon”. It is OK to group all these as “rare” for your FMP text. Please make
                                                                                                                  the appropriate text revisions.
     410 SJD          1          19       21                              Editorial   2.2 MU Description          "work circle" change to "Working Circle"
     412 SJD          1          71       42                              Editorial   2.2.3 Social and Economic   change "work circle" to "Working Circle"
                                                                                      Description
     413 SJD          1          72       15                              Editorial   2.2.3 Social and Economic   Change "the rocks of the Kenora Forest are host" to "The geology of the Kenora Forest is host to"
                                                                                      Description
     417 IDP          1          22       11                              Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description    Please change wording on line 11 to Wabaseemoong Independent Nations. Also the same change to page 88, line 11 (binder 1).
     419 IDP          1          24       22                              Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description    According to the maps there was harvest on the Aulneau up to 1984-85 and a small amount in 1985-86. Please reword the year(s) to reflect this or just say
                                                                                                                  the mid-1980's. Also the same change is needed for page 25 line 28-29.
     420 IDP          1          177      17                              Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for     Remove reference to appendix 10.
                                                                                      Operations
     426 IDP          1          204      2, 3                            Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,     The 2 sentences on the average number of fuelwood licences and volume should either be removed or else moved into the fuelwood paragraph at the end
                                                                                      Renew & Tend                of page 203. These sentences appear to be within a paragraph discussing something different from fuelwood.
     431 GLH          1          78       42                              Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for     Grammatical: "...preferred by woodland caribou ranging in size to simulate...". Reads a little awkward. Perhaps re-phrase.
                                                                                      Operations
     433 GLH          1          182      39                              Editorial   2.4.3 Prescriptions for     Typo: "0.3 m stocking" 30% or 0.3 stocking?
                                                                                      Operations
     438 GLH          1          201      22                              Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,     Typo: "he" should be "the".
                                                                                      Renew & Tend
     441 GLH          1                                                   Editorial   FMP-5                       Typo in footnote: "Balack-backed"

     453 IDP          1          206      5                               Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,     The map number needs to be corrected and the operational scale maps in appendix 9 should be referenced as well.
                                                                                      Renew & Tend
     462 IDP          1          208      12                              Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,     Isn't the harvest level of SBL 90 hectares?
                                                                                      Renew & Tend
     464 IDP          1          209      4-9                             Editorial   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,     These 2 sentences are almost exactly the same. Please try to combine them.
                                                                                      Renew & Tend
     471   IDP        1          216      16, 17                          Editorial   2.4.5 Access Roads          The appendix number needs to be corrected and supp doc M is the roads documentation rather than the FMP summary.
     477   IDP        1          219                                      Editorial   2.4.5 Access Roads          Where Trilake Road is mentioned on page 219, recommend referring to this as "Trilake/ Pipestone Road".
     478   IDP        1          220      1                               Editorial   2.4.5 Access Roads          Typo in the section number, should be 2.4.5.5. This is also in the table of contents.
     483   IDP        1                                                   Editorial   FMP-26                      FMP-26 has 2 road names that are different from the names in the road strategy map. Isinglass 577 and Denmark 579 should be listed as such in FMP-26
                                                                                                                  to match the map.
     484 IDP          2                                        Map 8.1    Editorial   MAPS                        Map 8.1 has a few road names missing from it, such as Caution Lake Road. Also for the label for Pipestone road, recommend referring to this as "Trilake/
                                                                                                                  Pipestone Road".
     485 IDP          1                                                   Editorial   FMP-26                      For Trilake Road, recommend referring to this as "Trilake/ Pipestone Road".
     486 IDP          1          10                                       Editorial   1.0 Approval and Contents   List of supplementary documentation - Values map 4.3 should be renamed in the listing on page 10 to land values as pits and quarries are not on there.
                                                                                                                  Also, map 3, the MU map is in the binder after the values maps so it should be listed in this supp doc listing also.
     507 GLH          2          15       36                   App 8D     Editorial   Appendices                  App 8D: Appears to be a typo (?) in reference here to SFMM graphs for wildlife indicators in App 8H, but I believe you have them here in 8D? 8H does not
                                                                                                                  have any wildlife graphs.
     568 IDP          1          47       32                              Editorial   2.2.2 Forest Description    Typo in the word "refugia" ?
     572 LOS          2                                        Caribou    Editorial   Appendices                  Appendix 6C
                                                               habitat                                            Under Assessment of winter caribou habitat supply please edit the guideline to read "Conservation of Woodland Caribou requires an assessment...."
                                                               analysis
                                                                                                                  Also, in line 7 under this heading please add "Forest" after Kenora.




                                                                                                                                        Page 30                                                                                                                               Editorial
ID      Reviewer   Binder #   Page #   Line #   Basemap #   Other       Type        Topic                Details


     574 LOS       2                                        Ungulate   Editorial    Appendices           direction for allocation..
                                                            management                                   line 7, remove an "as".
                                                            strategy
     583 IDP       1          231      1                               Editorial    2.5 Monitoring and   Was it meant to say pre-operations meetings instead of prescriptions?
                                                                                    Assessment
     584 IDP       1          232      11, 12                           Editorial   2.5 Monitoring and   The sentence starting "A map..." doesn't follow, it needs a conclusion.
                                                                                    Assessment
     585 IDP       1          232      13, 14                           Editorial   2.5 Monitoring and   The sentence ending "... what if any treatments are required" needs clarification to say either follow-up or additional treatments.
                                                                                    Assessment




                                                                                                                                 Page 31                                                                                                       Editorial
ID   Reviewer   Binder   Page #   Line #   Basemap #   Other   Type        Topic                     Details


7    CES        1        II                                    Suggested   1.0 Approval and         Suggest (plan author) be noted with Matt's signature block.
                                                                           Contents
8    CES        1        IV                                    Suggested   1.0 Approval and         Suggest wording from the NDPEG Q&A be used for the details of the 260ha exception rationale. It avoids an issue of trying to describe a 'planned clearcut' in this listing.
                                                                           Contents
12   CES        1        25       36                           Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description Section on WC4 seems to be missing a closure statement on management implications associated with this area, related to the EMA strategy.

13   CES        1        30       4                            Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description Suggest adding the other silvicultural guides (given PR/PW/Ce management)

14   CES        1        30       21                           Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description Do you have an existing bar chart or table in the FMP already showing %ES representation that could be referenced in this discussion? Some plans already have this as part of the
                                                                                                    SGR's or the FU development information.
15   CES        1        30       34-39                        Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description Good introductory questions, however the text that follows only touches on a few. Suggest only asking questions that are answered. Related to this, if other information exists it should
                                                                                                    be discussed in this section (size, pattern, productivity, habitat socio-economic)to help understand historic trend/variation. This discussion is a little weak.
17   CES        1        45       28-31                        Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description Suggest that this may not be so given the new FMPM requirements around objectives indicators and targets. Also, these tables will not exist.

21   CES        1        62       32                           Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description Suggest caution on outlining amendment requirements, as the new manual provides for operations to proceed without an amendment in a number of situations.

22   CES        1        62       35                           Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description Some discussion regarding the extent of the White Pelicans population should be covered off in this section. You have it noted in the introduction (Pg 11, ln 34)

29   CES        1        85       28                           Suggested   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt         Suggest that a time line is missing in this action statement. Suggest adding '... for use in the development of the next FMP.' Also, note that since this sort of information (survey) is
                                                                           Planning Context          related to FTG activities that it be noted in the Monitoring section of the FMP.
30   CES        1        88       2-44                         Suggested   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt         This text is dated and a number of references are to 'will be' need to be adjusted to reflect current status, since this section deals with how the issues have been addressed. Also it is
                                                                           Planning Context          quite unclear how exactly WC 4 has been addressed in this FMP (ln 22-40), and suggest you need a closure paragraph as to how the EMA strategy was used/addressed.

32   CES        1        105      13                           Suggested   2.3.3 Management          Listing/discussion should also note relationship between FU and WG's. Suggest these be listed.
                                                                           Alternatives
40   CES        1        125      14-18                        Suggested   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs     Suggest a couple of lines be added to identify that, for the productive landbase (FMP-12/13), the SPU actually doubles and the UCB is stable. This could help the reader downplay the
                                                                                                     significance of these results, as they currently stand out.
43   CES        1        153      35                           Suggested   2.3.5 Selection of MA     Suggest you need a header for this final conclusion as to the SMA (insert at line 35), so that it is not lost in the earlier paragraph which concluded the comparison to the 2001 FMP.

44   CES        1        154      20-41                        Suggested   2.3.6 AHA                 With these two paragraphs showing the comparison of the AHA and AHV I was left wondering how the Area could decline by 15% while the volume was similar. I do not recall reading
                                                                                                     anything yet in the plan to suggest that the yield curves were increased (analysis package actually states they were similar to last plan). Suggest that this be explained/discussed or the
                                                                                                     reader provided a reference where this discussion occurs.
48   CES        1        162      15                           Suggested   2.4.1 Introduction        STP will be selected? May I suggest that the preferred STP is reviewed and an alternative is selected where necessary ...
55   CES        1        169      1                            Suggested   2.4.3 Prescriptions for   Suggest this introduction (page 169-170) should be reworked as it is confusing as it attempts to cover a number of topics (disturbances, AOC prescriptions, prescriptions for other areas,
                                                                           Operations                and SGR's). Perhaps simplify this and leave the details to the discussion that follows.
56   CES        1        170      20                           Suggested   2.4.3 Prescriptions for   Suggest including 'certification page' as one of the locations where the exceptions are noted.
                                                                           Operations
59   CES        1        175      38-41                        Suggested   2.4.3 Prescriptions for   A couple of references to '... as of the FMP submission' that may need to be updated for the final plan.
                                                                           Operations
62   CES        1        178      35                           Suggested   2.4.3 Prescriptions for   Unsure what is meant by 'influence compliance and the application of the scaling manual' since the FMP should set the requirements with regard to leaving merch. wood behind, as
                                                                           Operations                outlined in the scaling manual. Suggest this be deleted.
65   CES        1        182      11-31                        Suggested   2.4.3 Prescriptions for   Suggest these paragraphs be inserted before the action to use BMP's (Line 32, pg 181)
                                                                           Operations
66   CES        1        182      34                           Suggested   2.4.3 Prescriptions for  Suggest this discussion be packaged with Section 2.4.4.1.2 to avoid duplication. If desire to keep with this section (as per FMPM layout) then perhaps cross reference each section. CDC
                                                                           Operations               has further requirements regarding this section (ID 200)
71   CES        1        185      4-16                         Suggested   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,  May wish to stress the 'carry over' of any uncut 2001 allocations, if these were also part of the rationale for the blocks (and associated substitution). Also, may wish to use Hassan's
                                                                           Renew & Tend             graphs to visually show the substitution related to each FU (insert small versions with each discussion), to assist in the explanation. The graphs go further than words can in showing that
                                                                                                    the allocations are really quite close.
74   CES        1        61       12                           Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description Suggest text be added after the first sentence, to outline that you actually have, in fact, identified BMP's to be applied as noted in 2.4.3.2 (Prescriptions for other areas).

76   CES        1        197      15-27                        Suggested   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,   This 'individual tree retention' discussion belongs in the 'Prescriptions for other areas' and should be located in close proximity to your snags discussion (page 178). See CDC alteration
                                                                           Renew & Tend              210.




                                                                                                                              Page 32                                                                                                                                                              Suggested
ID    Reviewer   Binder   Page #   Line #     Basemap #   Other     Type        Topic                     Details


77    CES        1        197      29-43                            Suggested   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,   Entire section has already been reported on with associated actions to be applied in the 'Prescriptions for other areas' on page 181-182. Suggest this be consolidated in that section.
                                                                                Renew & Tend
81    CES        1        200      17                               Suggested   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,   Suggest discussion needs to deal with the HWD, PJP and SPU as these FU's make up the majority of your volume loss associated with the selected stands.
                                                                                Renew & Tend
85    CES        1        203      39                               Suggested   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,   Suggest tying last sentence into identification in AWS (footnote on ASFO maps)
                                                                                Renew & Tend
104   CES        1        219      4                                Suggested   2.4.5 Access Roads        While the text talks to 3 primary roads with travel restrictions, FMP-26 has 5 primary roads and 12 secondary roads with access restrictions. Suggest these others should be discussed if
                                                                                                          the intent is to cover 'roads with access restrictions' as titled.
108   CES        1        228      15                               Suggested   2.4.7 Comparison of       Suggest the 2nd order watershed discussion include the proposed actions outlined in the FMP (BMP's).
                                                                                Harv, Renew & Tend to
                                                                                SMA
115   CES        1        233      33                               Suggested   2.5 Monitoring and        What about the FRI monitoring that was documented on page 85 (ln 18-28). Suggest this monitoring belongs in this section.
                                                                                Assessment
118   CES        1                                                  Suggested   FMP-10                    You have STP that are identical except for tending (one with cleaning one without) and they can be combined into a single STP with tending 'as necessary'. (e.g. ccOPOO and ccOPHO
                                                                                                          in SGR 2.01).
132   CES        6                                                  Suggested   AOC Sup Doc               While the plan has been excellent on referring Eagle nest sites as sensitive nest sites, the text within the AOC's documentation (and perhaps even the Road SupDoc's) should be
                                                                                                          reviewed and the term replaced with 'sensitive nest'. (e.g. AOC N2, part III for E1-02 on Longpoint Road).
160   IDP        1        VIII     33-34                  Section   Suggested   1.0 Approval and          Please provide further explanation to the statement "... the link between the proposed work... and the required financial resources...."
                                                          1.4 -                 Contents
                                                          preface
169   IDP        1        10       14                               Suggested   1.0 Approval and         Suggest changing forest management audits to independent forest audits.
                                                                                Contents
182   IDP        1        20       27                               Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description Was this meant to refer to "Terrestrial and Wetland Ecosites of NW Ontario" and the Book II: Silvicultural Guide rather than the FEC for NW Ontario as the FRI was done by ecosite
                                                                                                         rather than V-type?
185   IDP        1        30-32                                     Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description In this section, suggest discussing the impact of the 1991 blowdown on the forest condition.

284   IDP        1        116      23                               Suggested   2.3.3 Management          Need to add at the end of the sentence on line 23 that as well, the proposed alternatives were presented to the LCC.
                                                                                Alternatives
304   IDP        1        156      37, 38                           Suggested   2.3.6 AHA                Suggest including PRW in this sentence as well since it's also in objective # 3.
322   JAS        1                                                  Suggested   MAPS                     If Rushing River PP is going to be mentioned as a park that is adjacent to the FMU (i.e.. page 71), then it should be shown on maps. it is not shown on the Operations overview map
                                                                                                         (8.1).
331   IDP        1        167      25                               Suggested   2.4.2 Selection of Areas Suggest it would be better to say tracked and recorded instead of depleted on line 25.
                                                                                of Operations
343   IDP        1        187      1, 2, 24                         Suggested   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv, Suggest using the names for the forest units used on page 95 for consistency and clarity between the 2 forest units.
                                                                                Renew & Tend
369   MED        1        178                             Snag    Suggested     2.4.3 Prescriptions for  Suggest that the Company explains in this section the safety procedures for snags (or the lack of snags) associated with road corridors as discussed between the Company & local MNR
                                                          managem               Operations               i.e. no snags within 20-30 m of the road center line for safety concerns.
                                                          ent
370   MED        1        182      1-9                            Suggested     2.4.3 Prescriptions for  Suggest that and #10 be added stating that..."all culverts and cross drains will be maintained on a regular basis to ensure they are in good working order."
                                                                                Operations
396   GLH        1        57       15                               Suggested   2.2.2 Forest Description RE Kestrel: This is a problematic habitat to interpret from SFMM outputs. Suggest in the paragraph you may want to elaborate that in the model it is ranked by feeding habitat (the pre-
                                                                                                         sapling). However spatially, it nests in larger diameter cavity trees, i.e. old trees. These cavity trees are made available adjacent to open country (pre-sampling) by harvesting.
                                                                                                         Additionally we provide snags throughout cutovers, thus making cavities available for nesting, and kestrels prefer to nest in cavities exposed to open areas.
408   GLH        1        96       29                               Suggested   2.3.3 Management         RE: Red and white pine forest unit objectives: There is a 100 year measurable target. FMP-12 lists modeled 20 years increments which are the combined effects of the strategies. Is
                                                                                Alternatives             there a target for the end of the 5 years that this FMP’s performance can be measured against? It would be good to put this in the Plan, e.g. hectares of area planted.

429   SJD        1        86       22                               Suggested   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt         Change sentence to read "However, three of these individuals became either dissatisfied with the process or did not have the resources to continue to participate, and stopped actively
                                                                                Planning Context          attending Planning Team meetings around the time of the second info centre. They were formally asked if they were interested in being removed from the Planning Team membership to
                                                                                                          which none responded. As such, they remained listed as Planning Team members and continued to receive all related correspondence and materials.
432   GLH        1        179      30                               Suggested   2.4.3 Prescriptions for   RE moose habitat residual patches: As worded in this section, I was wondering if you are restricting yourself in the residual dimension requirements? If this is a Planning team decision
                                                                                Operations                to keep it within 300-400m, then OK. But there is room if you like to flex the cover to cover distance wider for residual on some landform types that would have naturally burned big and
                                                                                                          clean. Your decision, based on how you want compliance inspections to interpret natural pattern emulation.




                                                                                                                                  Page 33                                                                                                                                                             Suggested
ID    Reviewer   Binder   Page #   Line #   Basemap #   Other   Type        Topic                     Details


448   GLH        2                                              Suggested   NDPE                      App 6B Map: Disturbances 2001 With Harvest: It is difficult to see the residual patterns at the scale of this map. A suggestion is to print the north and the south half of the unit on two
                                                                                                      separate maps.
454   IDP        1        206      32                           Suggested   2.4.4 Forecast of Harv,   Suggest rewording "will be implemented" as this would mean that all 4863 hectares will be site prepared.
                                                                            Renew & Tend
458   LDM        1        77                                    Suggested   2.3.2 Forest Mgmt         Delete reference to DLUGs - they do not provide area-specific land use and resource management direction. This has been replaced by the Crown Land Use Policy Atlas.
                                                                            Planning Context

487   SJD        1        135      15                           Suggested   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs     The strategy of allocating smaller blocks near First Nation communities should be mentioned in the assessment of objective 1 achievement.
488   SJD        1        137      6                            Suggested   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs     The strategy of incorporating traditional ecological knowledge should be mentioned in objective 3 achievement.
489   SJD        1        137      27                           Suggested   2.3.4 Analysis of MAs     The strategy / target of 3750 m3 of fuelwood should be mentioned in the objective 4 achievement
541   JBA        MAPS                       365530              Suggested   MAPS                      Timing restriction for block 342 and 343
553   JBA        MAPS                       415470              Suggested   MAPS                      hatching across centre of map, patent land (printing error)




                                                                                                                               Page 34                                                                                                                                                              Suggested

				
DOCUMENT INFO