List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
DC MLM
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
001
Line #
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
Added in this section
New Pg #
1.
2.1
•
If RSAs were negotiated for this Forest it needs to be discussed in the plan (make reference to appropriate section) Details should be provided as to what happened in the RSA process (Scoping session, letters sent to RBT list, negotiations with RBT etc...) You need to have this somewhere in the plan. • If RSAs were not negotiated you should at a minimum identify the process you have followed to notify RBT operators and summarize the responses you have received. • As per “Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-Based Tourism”, pg. 3: “the FMP will expressly state that the terms of any RSA do not bind or limit the Minister’s right to make land use decisions for Crown land in Ontario”. You need to have this statement in the introduction of the plan (if applicable). • For all prescriptions developed through RSA process (as per tourism guide): “where an RSA has influenced the development of an AOC or selection of an access alternative the FMP will explicitly reference the RSA as a source of direction and as a rationale for the selected prescription/alternative”. Make sure there is mention of RSA negotiation as rationale under proposed prescription (for all RSA prescriptions) Lake X FMP-17 for example. • RSA : the Plan must state that the SFL holder is committed to maintaining the viability of the tourism industry by protecting tourism values in the forest management planning process through the applications of the Timber Management Guidelines for the protection of Tourism Values and the use of RSA’s as one method of protecting and sustaining these values. (Page 26 of the Management Guidelines for Forestry and Resource-Based Tourism)
Refer to training material for FMP documentation requirements relating to RSAs. 2. 3. SB DC E R 2.1 2.1 001 001 01 - 02 20 Change “…Great West Timber Limited…” to “…Great West Timber Limited (“the Company”)…” All references throughout document to the Timber Class EA should be deleted. Please reference, instead, the direction contained in the Declaration Order regarding MNR’s Class Environmental Assessment Approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands in Ontario (MNR-71) Delete reference to “EA Board’s Class EA for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario” (no longer in effect since it was replaced by the new EA Changed as required Inserted into text
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
1 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
released in June 2003). Suggested wording to include as overview: The CFSA and the MNR’s Class Environmental Assessment Approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands in Ontario Declaration Order (June 2003) provide legal direction for the management of Ontario’s Crown forests. The June 2003 declaration order extends and amends the Class EA approval to allow MNR to continue forest management planning on Crown lands in Ontario subject to 55 conditions. The revised FMPM will fully comply with all of the conditions outlined in the June 2003 declaration order. This FMP is written under the 1996 version of the FMP but complies with all phase-in requirements of the new Class EA. “…next renewal date falling on the first day of April 2011”. Please replace the word “timber” with forest There is no mention of the EA Index and where it can be found. This must be referred to in this section. Please add Title section to this “2.2. MU Description”. Other full sections are missing “2.2.2 Forest Description” is not there as a Title section or a Summary as per FMPM1996 A-15. A more detailed discussion on whom the SFL holder is, tenure arrangements of the company (ies) which operate on the management unit, would add to the clarity of this section. Please update date to this planning inventory as an updated ownership cover was provided by MNR. The manual at this point in time was called the Timber Management Planning Manual. Insert the correct title, and italicize. Starting with the line “Currently, in the Black River Forest….” Expand who the access restrictions are for and that the access restrictions serve to protect the tourism value. “Currently, in the Black River Forest, there are access restrictions in place from May 15 to October 15.” This sentence is unclear. The nature of the access restrictions needs to be described. Please change map title from Pic River Ojibway to Black river
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
4. 5. 6. 7.
VT DC MTY MTY
R E R R.E.C.
2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 & 2.2.2 2.2.1
001 001 001 002 004 008 004
23 29 All Intro All MU Descript
removed Replaced as required Changed as required Changed as required
8.
MLM
C
Not changed
9. 10. 11.
DC SB KB/SB
E C.E. E
2.2.1 2.2.1 2.2.1
004 005 005
46 05 33 Admin
Changed as required Changed as required - added who and referenced to more description in Supp doc.
12. 13. 14.
DC SB MTY
R.E E R.E.
2.2.1 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.1
006 009 009 24 24 Geo. & Soils
ok Changed as required What are you talking about? What does this have to do with es types?
Change “Thirteen site regions…” to “Thirteen ecological site regions…” Need have better discussion on linkage to SGR section. Also should have a more detailed discussion on the implications of management assumptions and strategies due to Soils. This might be a good section to mention the age cap of PJ on the forest. Please add jack Pine”, and Aspen on Boreal Forest Ecosites in Ontario (OMNR 1997)”
15.
DC
C
2.2.2.1
009
34
Added as required
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
2 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
KB
Type
E
/Table #
Section
Pg #
010
Line #
N/A Geology, Soils and Sites 01 - 06
Alteration
Figure 11 – legend spelling – bed rock should be one word. Course soils should read “coarse soils”.
Completed or explanation of alteration
ok
New Pg #
16.
2.2.2.1
17.
DC/MTY
R
2.2.2.1
011
References to your defined Hard-to-operate areas not being removed from available landbase. As per discussions and agreements during plan development, you will need to identify and discuss somewhere in section 2.4 of the FMP how much area by FU has been selected for operations during the term of this plan in the remaining hard-to-operate available areas. This was agreed upon with company/area/ region to show that these stands are accessible and “available” and that some stands will be selected for operations in this term. “Approximately seven percent is grouped…” Clarify – seven percent of what? Does not make sense.
reworded
18.
SB
C
2.2.2.1
011
02 - 03
removed
19.
MTY
E
2.2.2.2
011 011 (2nd)
20.
SB
C.E.
2.2.2.2
24 Hist. For. Cond. 24
removed
“…as classified by Rowe.” Is there a date that should be attached to this reference? Change “wiped-out” to “eliminated” Pure black spruce stands, especially on organics, are preferred habitat for woodland caribou. Please change this text to reflect the longevity of the white spruce as it is portrayed in the yield curves in Appendix 6. Please revise text as it reads this statement is inaccurate the HU matrix uses NE standard FU’s which contain stands “containing tamarack” Please incorporate this wildlife discussion as part of the Forest unit description since the matrix is now by FU and not ecosite. This sentence is not reflected in the natural succession rules for the poplar forest unit. Please add text describing why this has not been portrayed in the model. I suggest that you remove the reference to marten in the aspen section. Although it may be true that marten prefer stands that contain aspen, they are keying in on the conifer part of the mixedwood stands. Marten are not associated with aspen or birch. This sentence is not reflected in the natural succession rules for the birch forest unit. Please add text describing why this has not been portrayed in the model.
removed
21. 22. 23. 24.
SB GDL-1 DG DC DG
E R R C
2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2
013 014 014 016
35 07 40 - 43 34
Changed as required Changed as required Changed as required removed
25.
DG
R
2.2.2.2
017
30 - 33
This happens at such a low %, clarified this statement, longer regen time Ok, thanks
26.
GDL-2
C
2.2.2.2
017
44
27.
DG
R
2.2.2.2
018
35 - 36
removed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
3 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
GDL-3
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
018
Line #
43 - 46
Alteration
The new habitat matrix specifies preferred forest by standard forest unit. Since BW1 is a standard forest unit, you can use the information from the new matrix to determine which of the modeled species has birch dominated forest as its preferred condition. Many sections within the species description would be better suited as part of the forest unit description since they are linked to the modeling. Please move pieces of the text that refer to modeling by forest unit to section 2.3.3.1. Should have a better discussion of the linkage to section 2.3 future forest condition rather than “detailed later in the plan in 2.3.3.1…..” Good discussion on Appendix III. However, would like to see a sub-section header such as “Determination of Desired Future Forest Condition” With more detail. Pg 22 Ln 26 Please identify this as part of the Desired Future Forest Condition if that is the intent. Pg 22 Ln 38-41 Please add text that identifies why this condition was not modeled and that balsam fir is the conifer species that is more likely to appear. If Appendix 3 is the DFFC then a deviation from the Appendix in the model needs to be documented. Good summary table. You need to include the year of the null run when the percentage is as listed. I.e. is this percentage at 50 years into the future, 100 years, or when? Please explain where null run number came from (what term and why) Missing dashes after ‘SB1’ and ‘LC1’ (consistency with rest of listing) Please clarify whether LC1 and SB1 are lumped together or separated for the sort. Change table title from italics to regular text (consistency with Table 1) How was this chosen as the target for this unit PT ect, this needs to be stated in FMP text. Please revise text as this is inaccurate “this is not the targets to strive for in all forest management planning” Remove “no doubt” Please correct this sentence as it contradicts the statements on p. 15 lines 33-34 that refer to page 15 lines 7-10 that identify these stands as creating future even aged spruce-fir stands. The model also shows some area going into mixedwood conditions that is not described in the text. Change “%” to “percent” (two instances) (for consistency…you’ve spelled out the word ‘percent’ throughout the document thus far) Change “The above tables…” to “Tables 1 and 2…”
Completed or explanation of alteration
Ok changed
New Pg #
28.
2.2.2.2
29.
DG
C
2.2.2.2
019
31
I like the references here so when you read the history you get a handle on what has been here for a while No change
30.
MTY
R.E.
2.2.2.2
019
31.
MTY/DG
R.C.
2.2.2.2
019 – 029
32 Hist. For. Cond. All Hist. For. Cond.
Added heading
Ok ok
32.
GDL4/DC
R
2.2.2.2
021
01 Table 1 & 2
2106
33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
SB DG SB DC DC SB DG
E C E R C E R
2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2
021 021 021 022 022 022 023
13 - 14 14 Table 2 26 - 27 26 - 27 30 18 - 19
Changed as required Grouped in text Changed as required Changed as required ,Past Plan, PT, LCC Changed as required removed These are general statements not created to capture all succession. Also it is by species not FU. Changed as required Changed as required
40. 41.
SB SB
E E
2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2
023 023 & 024
22, 27, 31 12 & 11
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
4 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
GDL-5
Type
C
/Table #
Section
Pg #
025
Line #
02 - 34
Alteration
What is the purpose for this table? If it is to link it to the way that habitat is modeled in SFMM, then you should only include the preferred age classes, and not the used classes, since the used condition is not reported on in any analysis. Change “sum-marizes” to “summarizes” Please describe how setting the targets in the 2001-2006 FMP differ from those used in the 2006-2011 FMP. How was this chosen as the target for this unit not just appendix III, was this a PT decision as well to be used over time ect.. Needs to be included in plan text “1974 inventory” vs. 1976 Is this the same for the 06 plan? Change “Blu-spotted salamander” to “Blue-spotted salamander” What does this sentence mean? A spatial assessment of old growth is required as part of this FMP and referred to in FMP Note for 06 plans. If the spatial assessment cannot be made to the historic forest condition then it should be compared at a minimum to the current forest condition. This paragraph could speak to maps that are found in an appendix (example; to show in summary map format old growth by FU on the forest before and after allocations )that would also be used as part of the SMA text on any significant changes in contiguous patch sizes, mean nearest neighbor, or connectivity, if any strategies were developed to try and avoid areas ect. MNR Area / Regional Planning Unit Staff can be information source for text and assistance. Please call to discuss if you have any questions Reference to direction from Marten habitat guidelines is inaccurate, Please remove reference. Does not speak to all FU’s and spatial for all Fu’s and age of onset Marten also need overhead winter cover, as provided by conifer trees. Thus, marten cores concentrate into mature/overmature conifer dominated stands. Please include Late successional forests of conifer SFC component Please clarify what is meant by this statement/sentence Please identify that the “unburned islands” relate to insular patches and that no assessment was made on peninsular patches.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Referring to only preferred age classes
New Pg #
42.
2.2.2.2
43. 44.
SB DG/DC
E R
2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2
025 025
06 38 & 42
Changed as required Stated the method did not change.
45. 46. 47. 48. 49.
DG DC SB GDL-6 DG/DC
C C E E R
2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2
025 025 025 026 026
38 38 Table 3 14 - 15 19 – 24 23 - 24
Changed as required yes Changed as required One age of onset is listed Jakub is making.
Added text
50.
DC
R
2.2.2.2
026
23 - 24
Changed as required
51.
GDL-7
R
2.2.2.2
026
38 - 40
Added text
52. 53. 54.
DC DC DG
C C C
2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2
027 028 028
01 38 - 43 45
Added text A fire doesn’t care about values Reworded in text
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
5 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
DG
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
028
Line #
57
Alteration
Please remove the reference to a trend since there were only five fires analyzed, this is a small sample. There was no assessment of age class distribution or species composition and how the unburned areas relate to the pre-fire condition. Change “Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Guide” to “Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation” Please refer to this section in operational planning when discussing the residual patterns left after harvest. Although this is only for five fires it is good to highlight the variability that naturally occurs and use this to rationalize the variability when describing planned clearcuts. Change “the Black River” to “The Black River Forest”
Completed or explanation of alteration
Changed as required
New Pg #
55.
2.2.2.2
56. 57.
SB DG
R.E. C
2.2.2.2 2.2.2.2
028 029 029
57 - 01 13 - 17
Changed as required Added reference
58.
SB
E
2.2.2.2 & 2.2.2.4 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3
59. 60.
SB SB/DG/D C/MTY
E R
011 (2nd), 041 030 030
18, 8
Changed as required
18 26 – 27 27 - 29
Change “pine orpine-spruce” to “pine or pine-spruce” (insert space) “As described in section 2.2.2.2.1…” There is no section 2.2.2.2.1. Insert the correct section reference here. The reference to the section 2.2.2.2 indicates the desired future forest condition yet this section of the planned is labelled as the historic forest condition. Please identify the section correctly or add text to section 2.2.2.2 that identifies that the historic condition is the DFFC. Section 2.2.2.1 speaks of historic forest condition only. Where in the text do you reference what your Desired Future Forest Condition is? How you came to that decision, who had input on it etc, and do you have a DFFC statement description ect. You need to have a section or at minimum specific references for DFFC in the plan and discuss these points You identify on pg 51 “The development of a desired future forest condition is a key component that will guide management direction and strategies”. FMPM sect 2.3.1 discusses in more detail as do training messages and modules General on FRI Your discussion on FRI is missing important elements: • Ensure assumptions on FRI updating are captured in that section. Assumptions or modifications made to yield curves, SI, B&S, accruals etc must be fully documented in Silvicultural Strategies section or somewhere else in the plan. • Because stand height might influence application of the NDPEG (mostly for separation rules), you need to discuss how (if) you have updated this field in FRI. Sub-Section headers should be labelled the same way in all sections. In past sections they were underlined.
Changed as required Fixed reference
Added text to page 11 lines 13 to 22
61.
DC
R
2.2.2.3
030
30
Added text
62.
MTY
E
2.2.2.3
030, 036, 038
37, 1, 26, 18 and 16
Changed as required
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
6 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
& 039
Line #
Curt. For. Cond. 10 15 30 & 33 Table 8
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
63. 64. 65.
DG DG DG/DC/ MLM
C R R
2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3
031 031 031
66. 67.
PG DC/DG
R R
2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3
031 032 & 033
43 Table 8 04 – 10 & 41
Based on a FIM compliant inventory the species composition should add to 100. Please change the numerical value in the plan text. Please remove the reference to the 2004-05 seasons since it contradicts lines 17 and 21. Table 8 does not match the text on page 54 line 32. Pukaskwa National park is not part of the MU please remove. If this area was used in tables and SFMM in needs to be removed. Table 8 should not display any area for Pukaskwa National Park since this area is not part of the BRMU. If the area was used in the SFMM model it will need to be removed and the model re-run. Change Hectares to 496 ha from 495 ha to reflect current edits in CLUPA.
Changed 10 to 100 Removed ‘2004-2005’ Removed Pukaskwa National Park from table 8
Changed as required
inventory. To address this matter, a slope dependant buffering exercise was done using Spatial Analysis. This exercise buffered all identified water on the BRMU according to the adjacent slope percent in accordance with the Timber Management Guidelines for the Protection of Fish Habitat. These buffers were then cross-referenced with the planning inventory for its associated data. A percentage calculation by forest unit was done to determine the accumulating reserve input. A total of 9,071 hectares were accounted-for in the slope dependant buffer.” forest landbase is three fold: A decrease in buffer width around creeks, the removal of the mining exclusions, and access to approximately 70 percent of the “hard-to-operate” areas. In the previous Plan, it was assumed that all hard-to-operate forest was unavailable for timber production (2223 pg 36)”.
In plan text explain how accumulating reserve percentages in sfmm were calculated. The current slope dependent accumulation does not equal the 30m min reserve landbase removal from last plan. Where you reference a decrease in buffer width around creeks, please discuss in more detail how this was accomplished. If only a minimum 30 m buffer is used as in the last plan as well as the general results from a recent GIS exercise the area equals approx 9264 ha. The slope dependent reserves would equal a lot more given the landbase description of “precipitous slopes” and the fact that minimum is 30m on permanent streams (does this refer to intermittents as well?). Yet your slope dependent buffering and modeling shows less area at 9071 ha. Also Also from plan text “The principal reason for the increase in the available
From plan text “Past reserves have not been accounted for in the planning
Clarified the description
Last plan included intermittent streams, and swamps, this plan did not. Also last plan did not remove the reserves that were inside the non-productive areas. Example…50 metre reserve on a stream and the swamp or alder area extends 100 metres…therefore at the planning stage there is no buffer needed. At field inspection will be determined where the buffer will be put.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
7 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
please describe why in T16 you do not equal the amount of reserve area from your buffering exercise in water quality reserves. This has been mentioned during plan creation by Area/Region, a request was made for spatial reserve output files to assist in assumptions and clarification for PT and advisors. Also it is referenced in the plan that you completed this exercise on pg 85 and 109, yet you did not remove this area in SFMM. Therefore, with theses inconsistencies in plan text/appendices, in detail discuss in text of plan how reserve numbers were derived in SFMM and in comparison to last plan in addition to the table supplied in appendix 6 and update text throughout plan to ensure consistency. If rationale does not fit GIS exercise possible model implications will need to be discussed within the planning team and with regional advisors. Please add a sentence that indicates the total width of the streams or change the reference to buffer since some readers are unaware of the spatial exercise that takes place. Should reference Table FMP-7 in this section as well for other Land Use managed on the forest. This process is not reflected in FMP-9. Please adjust the table according to the process defined in the plan text. In this paragraph please make reference to FMP-3 and FMP-9 which are the tabular representation. Please identify at what scale that the changes take place, forest wide or only the crown managed. Change “…by land” to “by land type.” (consistent with Table of Contents) The reference to Figure 4 is incorrect. Please ensure the correct figures and titles are provided on this page. Please ensure that the text represents the numerical value. In this case it is only half and not over half. Please add a description of the benefits when forest units do not change between forest management plans. Please correct this sentence since it is incorrect. The values found in tables FMP-3 and FMP-9 are to be derived from the planning inventory. Line 14 and line 22 contradict each other. Please explain which is correct the increase or decrease in available landbase Change “(Bridge, s., Watt, R.W., Lucking, G. and Naylor, B. 2000)” to “(Bridge et al. 2000)” Refers to forest diversity indicies being required for previous plans, and thus no comparison. Was there not a completed FMP-4 in the current plan?
Completed or explanation of alteration
The total area for AOC’s (WQ & raptors, MA) is 10,153 ha which is greater than currently on the landbase. When modelled I did not notice this and when both colums added together is approximately the proper value. At the time it was not completed for modelling. It is complete now, and it still is the decision to utilize the accumulating reserve rather than the front end removal.
New Pg #
68. 69.
PG DG DC
R R
2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3
032 032
15 39 - 40
Ok referenced fmp-7 Changed FMP-3 and referenced fmp-3 and fmp-9 and fmp-11 Changed to forest wide
70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.
DG DG SB DG DG DG DG DC SB VT
C C E C C C R R E E
2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3
032 033 033 033 & 034 034 035 036 036 036 037
42 - 43 41 Figure 5 43 08 73 - 75 42 11-12 14 & 22 30 - 31 04 - 05
Changed as required Changed figure references in text Removed ‘over’ Described under objectives Changed as required Clarification added Changed as required The comparison is no change since it all has the same data.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
8 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
DG/GDL10/DC/V T
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
037 & 039
Line #
03 - 05 11-14
Alteration
Please correct this sentence since it is incorrect. The values were derived in the last plan and a comparison is possible between FMPs. The problem is that the values were not updated between the final 2001 FMP and the production of the 2006 FMP which means that the values have remained the same and there is no change between plans. Text states no data was provided in the previous plan that would allow a habitat supply comparison. Why is this (data issues etc)? The current plan has a complete FMP-5 table. Please explain. There was a table FMP-5 in the 2001 plan, so why can’t you compare the values from this plan to the previous plan? Your sentence does not provide enough rationale. The text provided by the Resource Analyst should be added in the plan text at this point. “Habitat supply will be monitored aspatially by modeling [sic] with the Strategic Foest [sic] Management Model (SFMM)…” You cannot monitor something with a model. A model is predictive; monitoring implies actually going out and making measurements/observations over time. The sentence should read: “Habitat supply will be modelled aspatially, using the Strategic Forest Management Model (SFMM)…” Change “ …(SFMM) the supply of habitat for twenty-two regionally-selected indicator species that are thought to cover a wide range of habitat conditions.” to: “…(SFMM). This modelling will consider habitat volumes over time for twenty-two regionally selected wildlife species, which are thought to be representative of a wide range of habitat conditions found in the Black River Forest.” Change this sentence to “based on inventories as of May, 2001”. “Particular attention may have to be paid to habitat supply trends for this species since the BRMU accounts for such a large part of its habitat supply in NE-3.” No species is listed in this paragraph. Is there a sentence missing? -Sentence fragment. Need to list species (Boreal Chickadee and Ruby crowned Kinglet, I expect). Text states particular attention may have to be paid to habitat supply. Need to elaborate and ensure follow through in the document.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Added text that there was no change due to the same data
New Pg #
80.
2.2.2.3
81. 82.
DG SB
R C.E.
2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3
038 038
17 28 - 29
Changed as suggested Changed as suggested
83.
SB/VT
E
2.2.2.3
038
29 - 30
Changed as suggested
84. 85.
GDL-8 SB/GDL9/DG/VT
R C
2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3
038 038
40 43 - 45
Changed as required Added sentence
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
9 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
VT SB SB DG SB
Type
R C E R C
/Table #
Section
Pg #
039 039 039 039 047
Line #
03 08 27 27 - 28 33 - 36
Alteration
“..and certain raptors (bald eagle and osprey).” AOC’s are in place for more than these two species, either remove or insert ‘for example”. Change “…large core areas…” to “…large interior core areas…” Change “…the water on…” to “…the water yield on…” Please reflect the text in table FMP-6. Currently the change from the previous plan is not populated in the table. “The social and economic benefits that arise from forest management at the local level may account for a large proportion of the total economic activity in a community making it highly dependent on the forest products industry. Conversely, it may account for a relatively small proportion.” Clarify – is this paragraph even necessary? All you’ve said here is that the forest industry might be important in a town, or not. Excellent job on this section but you need a linkage to FMP-6 in here.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Added ‘for example’ Not changed. Changed as required Added text that there was no change Added text
New Pg #
86. 87. 88. 89. 90.
2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.3
91.
MTY
R
2.2.2.3
All
All Curt. For. Cond.
It is connected
92. 93. 94.
PG DC MTY
C E R.E.
2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4
040 040 040 – 046 09 - 12 All Other For. Res.
95.
SB
C
2.2.2.4
041
10 - 11
Nice job on the 2.2.2.4 - Other Forest Resources Section. Very well written and complete. This sentence is not clear, “the presence of forest cover affords the bettering effects on watersheds…. Is this what you are trying to say? Needs discussion on Significant old growth stands (maybe also mention Pine on Pine grove Rd). Need to discuss the Management for Marten a little more. Needs discussion on Conservation reserves and their status. Also Needs description of how forest management activities could potentially affect the other resource values where it has not been discussed. “The only regular inventory of wildlife that is undertaken is that for moose.” MNR conducts an annual Black Bear Population Index (BBPIN), which identifies trends in bear populations, but not actual numbers. Also, the Manitouwadge Area office initiated an annual hare pellet survey in spring 2005. Again, this will identify population trends, not actual numbers. The hare survey will be generating useful data next summer. There are also numerous surveys conducted by volunteers and other agencies, the data from which are available to MNR. These include owl surveys, breeding bird surveys, spring amphibian counts, etc. The moose aerial inventory program may be the most well known population survey, but it is by no means the only one. Should the data for these other wildlife surveys be required for FMP, they could be made available. Suggest that this sentence just be dropped. Somewhere following the discussion of habitat, it would be beneficial to clarify what provincially featured species are recognized on the forest.
Thank you Re-worded Not mentioning specific areas. Discussed in Objectives and Strategies Discussed in FMP Table
Removed sentence
96.
VT
C
2.2.2.4
042
13
Mentioned in objectives
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
10 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB SB/GDL11 SB
Type
E R C
/Table #
Section
Pg #
042 042 042
Line #
19, 21 and 22 21 24
Alteration
Change “(not confirmed)” to “(presence not confirmed)” Change “Vulnerable” to “Special Concern” The proper term is “species of special concern”. I do not agree with the statement that “…the Eastern Cougar…[is] not considered to be at risk from forest management operations.” The fact is, were we ever to actually confirm a bona fide Eastern Cougar in the Manitouwadge Area, there would have to be a recovery strategy and action plan drawn up to address this endangered species, and it would, no doubt, impact upon the way the forest is managed. Eastern Cougar should be removed from this not-at-risk statement, and the following text inserted in a separate paragraph: “COSSARO lists the Eastern Cougar as an Endangered species, while COSEWIC designates it as ‘Data Deficient’. Despite many sightings in the past two decades from eastern Canada, there are insufficient data to evaluate the taxonomy or assign a status to this cougar. There may not be a distinct "eastern" subspecies, and some sightings may be of escaped pets. MNR continues to investigate reports of cougars in the Manitouwadge Area, however, until the presence of Eastern Cougar is confirmed on the Forest, it will not receive consideration during forest management planning.” “…the Black Tern and the Short-eared Owl are not considered to be at risk from forest management operations.” This statement requires some further explanation/justification. Change “Vulnerable” to “Special Concern” Add after “…been identified.”: “The Great Grey Owl does not build a nest, but rather occupies vacant nests of other raptors. Nesting habitat of the Great Grey Owl will receive consideration through the inventory and AOC protection of forest stick nests.” “COSEWIC considers the Bald Eagle to be Not At Risk while COSSARO considers it to be Endangered. Increasingly-frequent…” Change to read: “COSEWIC considers the Bald Eagle to be Not At Risk, while COSSARO currently lists it as Endangered. However, in June 2005, the MNR posted a proposal to downlist the Bald Eagle to Special Concern in northern Ontario. Increasingly frequent…” Add to end of paragraph: “In June 2005, the MNR posted a proposal to downlist the Peregrine Falcon to Threatened throughout Ontario.”
Completed or explanation of alteration
Changed as required X 2 Changed as required Removed as required Paragraph inserted as suggested
New Pg #
97. 98. 99.
2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4
100.
SB
C
2.2.2.4
042
24 - 25
Not changed
101. 102.
SB SB
R R
2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4
042 042
28 32
Changed as required Added as suggested
103.
SB
R
2.2.2.4
042
34 - 35
Changed as required
104.
SB
R
2.2.2.4
042
41
Added as suggested
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
11 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
042
Line #
45
Alteration
Change “…Black River Forest and on the west portion of the Nagagami Forest.” to: “…Black River Forest, the north and eastern portions of the Big Pic Forest, and the western portion of the Nagagami Forest.” “While guidelines are currently in draft production for Woodland Caribou in northeastern Ontario, a guideline is used within the Woodland Caribou range in northwesten Ontario.” This is not correct. The provincial Recovery Strategy has been submitted to the Feds, and is awaiting approval. After that comes an Action Plan. I doubt we’ll see FMP guidelines until well after the Action Plan is approved. In the meantime, those NER forests with caribou have been told to do the best we can with the Recovery Strategy and the NW Caribou Guidelines. Replace this passage with: “While there are currently no guidelines for Woodland Caribou in northeastern Ontario, the provincial Caribou Recovery Strategy has been submitted to the Canadian Wildlife Service for approval. In the interim, forest managers and biologists have been using the existing Caribou guidelines for northwestern Ontario, along with the draft Recovery Strategy, to manage caribou habitat in those forest management units where Woodland Caribou are known to exist.” Change “…no historical caribou habitat…” to “no current, documented habitat…” or Since there was historical habitat for caribou on the BRF, change this sentence to “Due to no recent sightings of caribou on the …” Change “COSEWIC considers…” to “Both COSEWIC and COSSARO list…” Change “…in Ontario…” to “…in northern Ontario…” Clarify “three-dimensional structure” “The Black River and its numerous tributaries that drain into Lake Superior…” The Black River does not drain into Lake Superior. Should read: “The Black River and its numerous tributaries that drain into Lake Superior (via the Pic River)…” Change “Pickerel” to “Walleye”. In reference to musky, as far as I am aware musky are recognized to be present in the Pic River near Superior. There is little evidence of their presence in the Black River tributaries. Please soften this statement. “The entire Black River system is considered a coldwater fisheries resource due to the presence of Sculpin, Muskellunge, Pickerel [sic] and Brook
Completed or explanation of alteration
Changed as required
New Pg #
105.
2.2.2.4
106.
SB
R
2.2.2.4
043
02
Passage replaced with suggested paragraph
107.
SB/GDL12
R
2.2.2.4
043
07
Changed sentence
108. 109. 110. 111.
SB SB SB SB
R R C C
2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4
043 043 043 043
10 20 24 38
Changed as required Changed as required ok Changed as required
112.
VT/MTY/ SB
R
2.2.2.4
043
40
Replaced pickerel with Walleye
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
12 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Trout…” Muskellunge and walleye are not coldwater fishes. ‘…siltation that may impact on nearby spawning areas in coldwater streams.’ Remove “coldwater”. “…recent studies in the Atikokan area…” Despite studies in Atikokan, we are still bound by the existing Fisheries Guidelines. This statement sounds to me like a back door to circumvent the Guidelines. Again, this statement requires further explanation. First sentence would lead the reader to believe the author feels the data are seriously lacking. Is this the case? Does the Company have additional information? Is Loken a cottage subdivision? Unclear what sentence is referring to (artifacts)? “…a remote outpost camps…” Clarify – is this singular or plural? Your discussion on PSP being established on the BRF. As a result have and AOC’s been developed or discussed for some of the PSP. Have PSP values been queried. Nothing in FMP-17, therefore if none are going to be effected by operations please state this in FMP text Change “etcetera” to “et cetera” (consistent with previous use) Change “the Appendix” to “Appendix 2” “The dependency on logging is…” Clarify – dependency of what? I assume you mean workforce dependency, but that isn’t clear. Remove “reported earlier, while high it” Change “it” to “timber” Change “…three MNR Districts…” to “…four MNR Districts…” Table 11 needs a better explanation. What is the timeframe, source of the information and why is Black not listed as a source of fibre for all the Companies Change “Inc***” to “Inc.***” Clarify – what is the difference between “none” and “N/A”? Please be consistent throughout the table. You need to provide more details on the other commercial uses of the forest. At a minimum, you need to provide a list of resource-based tourism
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
113.
VT
R
2.2.2.4
044
03
Removed ‘coldwater’
114.
SB
C
2.2.2.4
044
10
No just telling about other studies out there. No tback door we didn’t even push this issue
115.
VT
C
2.2.2.4
044
15
no
116. 117. 118.
VT VT SB
C C C
2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4 2.2.2.4
044 045 045
45 20 44
no Unclear what is being asked Assumed to be plural…removed ‘a’
119.
DC
R
2.2.2.4 & FMP-17 AOC 2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.3
045
24 - 25
Stated in text
120. 121. 122.
SB SB SB
E E C
047 048 049
25 & 26 15 02 - 03 & 39 - 40
Fixed pg 47 ln 25 & 26 Fixed pg 48 ln 43
Thank you for your comment. This is fine Fixed pg 49 ln 38 & 39 Changed to “wood Fibre” pg 50 ln 4 Fixed pg 52 ln 8
123. 124. 125. 126.
SB SB SB MLM
E E R C
2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.3
049 049 051 052
11 23 27 16
Added text to pg 52 & 53, ln’s 24 to 5 Fixed Table 10 Removed N/A & replaced with “none” or “unavailable” Fixed: added text & table to pg 54 to 56 “Non industrial use of the forest” and
127. 128. 129.
SB SB DC
E C R
2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.3
052 053 054
Table 10 Table 12
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
13 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
operators, number of employees, what they offer, number of guests, etc. (refer to FMPM, pg. A-35). If this information can not be provided, rationale is required. Text states 7 BMA operators. Page 46 states there are 6 active BMA’s. Change “…the benefits…” to “the economic benefits…” Your math doesn’t add up on the distances. Pan Lake is 40km south of Manitouwadge, and 40 km northeast of Marathon. If Isko Dewabo is also 40 km northeast of Marathon, how can it only be 30 km south of Manitouwadge? Please remove “of sustainability” from last sentence Where are the graphs for the indicators of sustainability? You need to analyze the trend-through-time for the wildlife species, as well as the -20% line, to ensure sustainability. (Please refer to the FMP training.) Where are the graphs and the analysis/reporting of this? Please add Title section to this “2.3. Strategic Direction and Determination of Sustainability”. The title block says “Introduction”, but it doesn’t identify what you’re introducing. There is no title or other indication that Section 2.3 is the Strategic Direction and Determination of Sustainability. Should read MNR’s Class Environmental Assessment for Forest Management Planning on Crown Lands in Ontario in stead of ‘Timber Management..’ Please reflect the new Strategic Directions Document called ‘Our Sustainable Future’. See SEV Briefing Note for proper wording if needed. This document is the most current update and replaces ‘Beyond 2000’. Should read Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy. The following documents should be added to the list of the Direction from OMNR: Tourism and Forestry Industry Memorandum of Understanding, The Resource-Based Tourism Policy, the Ontario Living Legacy Land Use Strategy, and Old Growth Policy for Ontario’s Crown Forests. Our sustainable futre 3rd paragraph- What is the source of the “Forest Management Business Case” Please reference MNR’s new strategic direction released early in 2005 - “Our Sustainable Future” update text and Supp doc #1 accordingly. Please add the new document, Our Sustainable Future, to the list. Please update reference to read “Declaration Order regarding MNR’s Class Environmental Assessment Approval for Forest Management on Crown Lands in Ontario (MNR-71)”. (correction needed to reference in Sup Doc #1) Please change the text to identify the new Forest EA vs. the Timber EA. Please indicate that it is the 1996 FMPM with the phase-in requirements of
Completed or explanation of alteration
“Commercial” sections
New Pg #
130. 131. 132.
VT SB SB
C E C
2.2.3 2.2.3 2.2.3
054 054 054
12 28 33 - 37
Fixed pg 56 ln 31 Fixed pg 56 ln 19 Thank you for your comment; it is an approximation of location
133. 134.
DC GDL-51
R R
2.2.3 2.3
054
47
Ok, this part has been removed In ANAlysis of Management Alternatives under SMA, habitat for selected species. Then the graphs are in App. 20 Changed as required
135.
MTY/SB
R.E,
2.3
056
All
136. 137.
PG PG
R R
2.3 2.3
057 057
13 21
Changed as required Added ‘Our sustainable Future’
138. 139.
PG MLM DC
R.C. R
2.3 2.3.2.1
057 057
36
Changed as required These are all listed in the appendix
140. 141.
MLM MLM/DC
C R
2.3.2.1 2.3.2.1
057 057
Removed Added
142.
MLM
R
2.3.2.1
057
Changed as required
143. 144.
DG MTY
R E
2.3.2.1 2.3.2.1
057 057
13 - 14 17
Changed as required Changed as required
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
14 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Direct. Frm Othr Sources 25 Direct. Frm Othr Sources FMP-07
Alteration
the 2004 FMPM. If you are referring to FRAP (Forest Resource Assessment Policy) Good! But can you indicate this. If you are not referring to FRAP you must referred to it in this section. Table is meant to include local land use and resource management direction in the CLUPA (DLUG) which apply to the unit. Current plan includes Wawa direction and OLL areas. Are these still relevant to include here? Change “…ForestManagment…” to “…Forest Management…” (insert space) Formatting – no line numbers Last line – reference Appendix 5, Volume 6
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
145.
MTY
R
2.3.2.1
057
Already indicated
146.
VT
C
2.3.2.1
057
No
147. 148.
SB KB
R E
2.3.2.1 2.3.2.1
057 All
149.
MTY/KB/ SB
R.E.
2.3.2.2
058
150. 151. 152. 153.
DC DG/SB MTY DC/MTY/ DG/KB/V T
R C R.E. R
2.3.2.3 2.3.2.3 2.3.2.3 2.3.2.3
058 058 058 059 064
Para 2, line 9 All Direction from Other Sources Header / Title Block Criteria to Assess Forest Sustainabilit y 24 30 All All
Changed as required Added line #’s
This section has been mislabeled as 2.3.2.3 The title of this section does not match the Table of Contents. Should read “Criteria to Assess Forest Sustainability” Section is numbered 2.3.2.3, but should be numbered according to manual as 2.3.2.2.
Changed as required
SFMM = Strategic model not Sustainable Please correct the title for OWHAM to Ontario Wildlife Habitat Analysis Models. Good Criteria section, to the point section but, has same label as 2.3.2.3 Issues. Need to summarize issues from RPFO. When an issue is described, following it with a statement as to which objectives deal with the issue provides a very simple format and flow through to the next section of text. Some issues do this- others don’t. Some issues sections refer to strategies that help address the issues presented. There should be consistency among the sections to indicate whether there has been a strategy developed or not. Please make a reference to the IFA found in the Supp. Doc. Or add a more detailed listing of the recommendations. As per earlier reviews; The intent of the Issues Section has been missed. It appears that a some of the issues are just listing complaints with the FMP process, or complaints regarding the guidelines and direction that must be followed in developing a forest management plan , or issues with no strategy to address them within the FMP
Changed as required Changed as required Changed as required
All issues reference strategies and obj.
Added link Revised as much as possible without having the planning team meet on this decision
154.
DC
R
2.3.2.3
059 +
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
15 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Need to identify issues that the planning team can deal with through the development/implementation of the plan. The FMPM states, page A-45 lines 21-22 “The issues must be…considered in the determination of management alternatives…” and lines 34-36 “The manner in which the plan deals with identified issues will be reflected in the objectives and strategies…”. Please revise all issues ensuring you keep only ones whereby objectives and/or strategies have been developed to deal with them. If you feel strongly about some of the issues that do not belong here, suggest you put them in the “Major Issues Encountered” supp doc. Also, please be sure to describe how you have or will deal with the issue or cite which part of the plan describes this Very good link provided on how this issue has been addressed through objectives or other portions of the plan. This needs to be done for all issues listed as per training messages. Please add a similar closing sentence to the other issues in order to link them to the objectives, strategies and targets. Please clarify intent of last sentence Please describe the actions that GWTL is going to take in order to help address the information and research gaps. Change “When the Black River Forest was acquired…” to “When the Black River Forest SFL was acquired…” “…conifer pulp sales have fluctuated from all time highs to no market at all. If conifer pulp was not part of the market, it would be impossible to justify continuing logging operations…” Clarify – to me, the way this reads is that GWT has ceased logging operations on the Black River Forest when the market for conifer pulp has been low. Please change ‘Unmarketable Species” to “Hard To Market Species” or “Poorly Marketed Species” or “Difficult To Market Species” or remove Market to state Unutilized or Under Utilized. Anything is Marketable it is just a matter of can the Market be found for the right selling price. “In the Wawa District demand for cedar has changed….” Please elaborate for clarification. New paragraph at ‘White Birch’ “…little demand…” Clarify – I was under the impression that MPI was asking for birch. Is this incorrect? “The Utilization Flow Chart in Section 2.3.3.1 will be followed during the planning process to insure [sic] that the issued [sic] of underutilized species
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
155.
DC/DG
R
2.3.2.3
062
29 - 30
Linked all issues
156. 157. 158. 159.
DC DG MTY/SB SB
C R R.E. C
2.3.2.3 2.3.2.3 2.3.2.3.1 2.3.2.3.1
062 063 060 060
41 - 42 32 07 -08 10 - 12
Clarified Added sentence Changed as required Clarified
160.
MTY
R
2.3.2.3.1
060
19 Wood Utiliz/under Utiliz. 30 31 32
Changed as required
161. 162. 163.
VT SB SB
R E C
2.3.2.3.1 2.3.2.3.1 2.3.2.3.1
060 060 060
Removed sentence Changed as required They are but for political reasons will not pay for it from GWTL
164.
SB
C
2.3.2.3.1
060
36 - 38
Reworded
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
16 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
is properly addressed in both the text of the plan…” Clarify – isn’t this the text of the plan? When was this section written? It sounds like it hasn’t been updated since earlier in the planning process. This subsection is incorrectly identified as 2.3.2.3.1.0, Should be 2.3.2.3.10 This issue is unclear, suggest it be removed or reword. “These features…these values.” Comment – I don’t feel that this passage adequately addresses this issue. Further explanation is warranted. This subsection is incorrectly identified as 2.3.2.3.1.1 Should be 2.3.2.3.11 Not sure we need to say anything regarding this issue here. Consider omitting or including a generic statement as to the other potential issues having been resolved or not materializing. “At this time this issue is no longer.” Clarify – No longer what? This is an incomplete sentence. Please complete the paragraph. Would be useful to have a more text around how the objectives, strategies and targets are used the planning process. This is a key section and needs to laid out better. Targets are not described. “…fragmentation may facilitate predation and parasitism…” Clarify – I am not familiar with the processes by which forest fragmentation facilitates parasitism of wildlife. Replace “certain” with “predetermined vicinity of the remote tourism lake….”
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
165. 166. 167.
SB/MTY/ DG VT SB
R.E. R C
2.3.2.3.1.0 2.3.2.3.1.0 2.3.2.3.1.0
064 064 064
16 16 - 20 18 - 20
Changed as required Added objectives. Changed to value
168. 169.
SB/MTY/ DG VT
R.E. C
2.3.2.3.1.1 2.3.2.3.1.1
064 064
22 24 - 28
Changed as required no
170.
SB
C
2.3.2.3.1.1
064
28
Changed as required
171.
VT
C
2.3.2.3.1.1
066
14 - 21
Linked the section better
172.
SB
C
2.3.2.3.2
061
01
Promotes more area
173.
KB
E
2.3.2.3.3
061
174.
SB
C
2.3.2.3.3
061
13 Road Use Management Strategies 37 - 38
Changed as required
“…the public has mixed feelings regarding road abandonment and nonabandonment the same is true for in the summary of the 2006-2011 FMP.” Clarify – this statement does not make any sense. Please re-word. End sentence after abandonment, and begin new sentence “The same is true…”
Re-worded
175.
KB
E
2.3.2.3.3
061
176. 177.
KB SB
C E
2.3.2.3.4 2.3.2.3.4
061 061
38 Road Use Management Strategies 40 Operability 44
Re-worded
should be entitled Inoperability as the tone in this section describes the restrictions of topography on logging operations. Change “one-third” to “third”
No this is talking about the operability of the forest Changed as required
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
17 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
KB
Type
E
/Table #
Section
Pg #
062
Line #
41 Harvest Bypass 28 - 31
Alteration
Reword sentence starting with “For this reason….” In order to clarify point.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Reworded
New Pg #
178.
2.3.2.3.6
179.
VT
R
2.3.2.3.7
063
180.
SB
C
2.3.2.3.7
063
29 - 30
It is been an issue in the past that funds required for inventory were not available for practical use until areas of allocation were identified. This ensures the funds are directed at the appropriate areas as opposed to the entire unit. Providing all values info prior to ITP is not practical nor does it provide the planning team with the most up to date and accurate info. The system needs to work better- YES. This section needs to be reworded. “…incomplete nest surveys…” Clarify – please explain what you mean by ‘incomplete nest surveys’. The way that this is worded, this is not an issue, and should be removed. The need to properly apply guidelines is not an issue in an FMP. Or, you could write an issue that says that the desire to meet certain forest harvest level limits the opportunity of the forest to meet the intent of the marten guidelines. Deferring core areas does complicate the harvest allocation process, but conversely, the desired harvest allocation process complicates the ability of the forest to provide long-term quality marten habitat. Uncertain what the issue is here. Perhaps this could be included with forest fragmentation. Also the intent of identifying issue is to ensure follow through to objectives and strategies. I’m not certain what the strategy to solve this issue would realistically be. Please clarify what the issue is, and how it is dealt with in this FMP. If it is not an issue please remove or state no longer an issue as was 2.3.2.3.1.1 “However, when considered in light of the requirement to provide latesuccessional forest on the landscape, the impact may be less than would otherwise be the case.” Clarify – Otherwise be what case? The way I read this is, deferring marten cores has less impact than providing late-successional forest on the landscape. Aren’t they the same thing? Slashpile Burning – you say that this may be an issue, but then you say that the recommendation will be implemented. What you don’t say is why the implementation of the recommendation may become an issue. Please clarify. Recommendation #2 does not deal with values… should be #4 MNR has implemented recommendations from IFA To brief!! This section needs to Highlight or Summarize the components of the forest condition that are essential for determining forest sustainability. This 2.3.3. Management Alternatives section is Missing!! This section is supposed to have a brief statement describing What a MA is and what the
I stated that the issue should be resolved before the ITP not the new values.
181.
GDL13/VT
R
2.3.2.3.8
063
33 - 42
Surveys that were partially done or recorded or when values are not passed on to the SFL holder in proper timelines The issue is that meeting the guideline.
182. 183.
DC SB
C C
2.3.2.3.8 2.3.2.3.8
063 063
35 - 42 40 - 42
This is not the guideline but meeting the guideline. Ok, thanks
184.
SB
C
2.3.2.3.9
064
06 - 08
Strategy 1(g)
185. 186. 187.
CB CB MTY
R R R
2.3.2.3.9 2.3.2.3.9 2.3.2.4
064 064 065
10 13 & 14 All Curnt. For.Con. All Mgnt. Alter.
Changed as required Ok removed sentence All of the components are in section 2.2.2.3. They are in 2.3.3.2. where they are supposed to be.
188.
MTY/SB
R
2.3.3
065 – 066
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
18 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
alternatives were.
Completed or explanation of alteration
No silviculture trend was done
New Pg #
189.
MK DC GDL-14
C
2.3.3.1
190.
R
2.3.3.1
066
28 - 29
191.
SB
C
2.3.3.1
067
05 - 07
Was a “silvicultural trends” analysis done for this FMP? Such an analysis can help fine tune the planned silvicultural work, and identify areas needing improvement. Please state this in plan text How did you decide to use the benchmark run for the forest composition, but use the Appendix III results for the old growth? Why wouldn’t you have considered both when determining your targets? The old growth policy requires you to consider all sources of information. Why wasn’t the benchmark run used at all for the old growth? Your point on page 67, lines 19-21 is correct: “the study … should be used in developing strategies and targets.” That does not mean that it is the only piece of information that should be used. “They will develop and use other processes that are sensitive to and consistent with natural processes wherever natural processes are inconsistent with the socio-economic needs of society.” Clarify – To me, this reads like, when nature and society don’t agree, we should develop processes that society won’t agree with. Seems like a convoluted passage. Please re-word. Change “socio-economic” to “socioeconomic” (consistent with balance of the document) What year? “The study has been further developed and the use of the Strategic Forest Management Model to explore successional trends on the Forest using the natural benchmark scenario which models stand development in the absence of harvesting and fire suppression.” Clarify – this passage, as written, does not make sense. Is it supposed to read: “The study has been further developed using the Strategic Forest Management Model to explore successional trends on the Forest using the natural benchmark scenario which models stand development in the absence of harvesting and fire suppression.”? Please provide clarification. Please add text that describes how this relates to the current condition and that of the null run. Please remove the references to new since these are the same forest units as those from the current plan. How will the “range of natural variation” of FU’s be calculated, I see new targets on pg 70. But what is the variation range you are using +-20% ? something else?. Please elaborate, this needs to be stated in the text of the plan for what is being used and how it was decided upon. How will you accomplish this and how will you measure this and when. I do
Stated that the target came from the APP. III and to a lesser degree null and pt members. FYI, when targets were derived for the plan at the road show, the null run hadn’t been developed. They also without knowing match fairly close.
This means that other methods other than natural ones will be used where natural processes are inconsistent with the needs of society.
192. 193. 194.
SB MTY SB
E E C
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
067 067 067
07 19 23 - 25
Changed as required Changed as required Reworded
195. 196. 197.
DG DG DC
R R R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 Sub 1.1
067 067 067
23 - 29 26 - 27 32 - 34
Actually above paragraph, and deals with sub-obj. 1.1 an d 1.2 Reomved Added text
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
19 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
not see anything in the strategies section, you need to state this in the plan.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Ok No, peoples opinions may be less or more important based on the experience and time they spend on the forest Areas that are not harvest will continue to age.Therefore, contribute to old age forest condition. Text added. explained
New Pg #
198. 199.
MTY/SB KB/MTY
E R.C.
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
067 067
32 & entire section 42
200.
DG
R
2.3.3.1
068
33
201.
DC
R
2.3.3.1 Sub 1.3
068 & 071
202.
DG/DC/ MTY DG
R
2.3.3.1
069
02 - 04
203.
R
2.3.3.1
069
37 - 42
204. 205.
DC DG
C R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
069 070
38 - 39 02 - 48
All section headers should be in the same font throughout the plan….you need to check this again they are not consistent. Emphasize that both the natural benchmark and the opinions of the planning team were used as opposed to weighting one against the other. Both are equally important. Please describe how by-passed areas will help to retain age class structure in the SFMM model and how this will be incorporated into the scoring or remove the reference to by-pass. How will you measure this objective, over time, at he DFFC (please elaborate) no summary shown through time ect. How much “mature/over mature” do you have through time by FU. Need to see more than just SFMM targets for Public Document Please describe how circular insular patches will reflect structural patterns based on NDPEG and how they will be manipulated around the new Clearcut. Consider removing this strategy or comparing it in the operational planning section to FMP-18. Currently this strategy is not met for a number of forest units. Please change wording from conifer only, suggest fiber or timber Please rewrite this section in order to make comparisons to the 2001 FMP and not the 1997 FMP. Lines 20-30 should be changed to reflect the fact that the forest units were the same as the last plan. You should reference which forest unit(s) was underestimated as a result. (I presume it was the hardwood forest units, since your targets are higher than the Amcan numbers.) Where is your frequency information to go along with this target on page 123. Has this template been reviewed by planning team and LCC? Table 14. Please add additional text to this target to explain why the new targets increased or decreased in comparison to the last plan when the age classes stayed the same. Where are the mature targets for the forest units? If you only have a target of 1% overmature for Pj1, it is very possible that there will be <5% Pj1 over the age of rotation. Since the best science available shows that about 33% of a forest unit should exist in ages over the fire cycle age, you need to set targets for the overmature condition, or at least examine the amount of area in the mature category for the SB1, LC1, PJ1, PJ2, SP1, and MW1 forest units. Although the SFMM benchmark run does have problems, so does the analysis of the Amcan inventory. It only shows one snapshot in time, and based on the high fire rates from 30 years before the snapshot, likely underestimates the long-term average amount of old forest. A more balanced approach would have been to consider both pieces of information
Left as natural as possible trying to follow natural terrain. Removed
Changed as required Added reference to 2001-2006 FMP, still Reworded. Ok referenced.
206.
GDL-16
C
2.3.3.1
070
47 - 48
207. 208.
DC DG
R R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
071 071 01
Changed as required Fixed table and removed taxt and explained how targets were derived. Added a reference for text describing, what will happen in the future with a mature target.
209.
GDL-18
R
2.3.3.1
071
01 - 26
210.
GDL-17
C
2.3.3.1
071
17 - 28
Thanks for the comment
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
20 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
together, as specified in the old growth note.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Changed wording
New Pg #
211.
DC
R
2.3.3.1 Sub 2.1
072
32 - 33
Your sub objective should read something along the lines of to make available a sustainable wood supply from the forest……. You state you only want to meet the industrial demand. The Industrial demand should be the target, but if you can exceed your target, great. The way the objective reads is you are only try to make “the commitment of the day available through time” “At present wood is delivered to Dubreuil Forest Products, Dubreuilville; Kimberly-Clarke, Terrace Bay; and Levesque Plywood Limited, Hearst.” You only list three recipients here, but there are several others listed in Section 2.2.3. Please adjust this passage to accurately reflect the current situation. a) FMP-17 is not land use direction for crown land. Please remove reference b) How will the RSA guideline be used c) How are you going to measure the “qualitative” target you discuss Missing some words within sentence. “stands deemed to be inoperable the day’s harvesting technology….” A sentence like “stands deemed to be inoperable according to today’s harvesting technology….” Might be more appropriate. Please reword this sentence. “2 (b) stands deemed to be inoperable the day’s harvesting technology when they were identified in the planning inventory.” Clarify – this appears to be a sentence fragment, possibly a cut-and-paste error? Strategies 2b, 2c – suggest some wording around a collaborated effort between the company and the MNR to update the FRI when new changes are found. Include “Resource Stewardship Agreement’ along with abbreviation. Please remove this sentence since it has no bearing on the plan, no associated targets and no assessment was completed in latter sections. Change “1st open house” to “first information centre” Change “…appropriate heritage…” to “…appropriate cultural heritage…” Was there any attempt made to contact the individual trappers during the FMP development stage, to possibly try to incorporate their concerns into the harvest pattern? Change “2nd open house” to “second information centre” If communication hasn’t solved this issue perhaps a more rigorous strategy
212.
SB
R.C.
2.3.3.1
072 – 073
42 - 02
No change
213.
DC
R
2.3.3.1
074
03 & 08
Removed reference to FMP-17 –is there another table? There is no RSA that has been negotiated Added text to describe measurability. Changed as required
214.
KB
E
2.3.3.1
074
40
215.
DG/SB
C
2.3.3.1
074
40 - 41
Changed as required
216.
KB/MTY
C
2.3.3.1
074 – 075 075 076 076 076 076
General
Changes are to be done prior to planning
217. 218. 219. 220. 221.
VT DG SB SB GDL-18
R R E E C
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
47 33 - 36 35 39 43
Changed as required Removed Changed as required Changed as required The plan has been open to the LCC who has a trapper representative Changed as required Thanks
222. 223.
SB VT
E C
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
076, 080 077
35, 16 08
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
21 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
need be applied.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Yes
New Pg #
224.
SB
C
2.3.3.1
077
15
“Pic River Heron Indian Band” Clarify – Is this actually the correct name for the Band? The industrial demand for SPF is not set regionally as stated. Please remove reference. Mill requirements are agreed to in business plans. And as per RD letter on wood flow information the proper reference is “current wood supply commitments, anticipated commitments, and management unit contributions towards the Ministry Recognized Operating Levels (MROLs) of mills for which the Black River Forest is expected to provide a portion of the fibre supply” As earlier discussions with Forest Industry Liaison Officers you need to set target for all species. And as per RD letter on wood flow information. It was agreed that this “No Net Loss in Employment” would be Removed. As per earlier reviews and discussions with Regional and District Staff. This objective and socio-economic targets can not be measured as part of the FMP. It is not related to manipulation of forest cover and the FMP does not provide for economic opportunities. Please remove this objective and socio-economic targets Please remove this sentence or move it to a later section since this is an assessment of the SMA and not a target in the FMP. As a planning team, we should know whether marten habitat is in good supply. Drop “believed”. “Recent studies…to be greater.” Despite studies in Atikokan, we are still bound by the existing Fisheries Guidelines. This statement sounds to me like a back door to circumvent the Guidelines. This statement requires further explanation. Change “Rare” to “Special Concern” & Change “Rare, Vulnerable…” to “Special Concern…” Change “location-specific” to “site-specific” Please omit the sentence since the timing conditions to the strategy have past and will have no bearing on the approved FMP. It is not sufficient to make reference to FIM. There needs to be additional text describing the process as defined in FIM from which compliance can be measured. Please add a target and subsequent assessment in FMP-12 has to how this strategy will be measured and achieved.
225.
DC
R
2.3.3.1
077
23 - 24
Changed as required
226.
DC
R
2.3.3.1
077
23 - 28
Added text stating that minimal volume and meet demand each term. Removed “No Net Loss”.
227.
MTY/DC
R
2.3.3.1
078
01 - 04
228. 229. 230.
DG VT SB
R C R.C.
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
078 078 079
06 - 08 39 30 - 32
Ok, clarified and reworded Dropped ‘believe’ clarified Not a back door but stating studies. I do not state anything that is not in the guide now. And it is onlya guide.
231. 232. 233. 234.
SB SB/MTY DG DG
R E R R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
079 080 080 080
38 & 40 04 - 05 15 - 16 23
Changed as required Changed as required Ok, moved to values section Changed to the confirmation and verification process. Not added to FMP-12, but added to text of target.
235.
DG
R
2.3.3.1
080
31 - 35
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
22 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
MLM
Type
C
/Table #
Section
Pg #
080
Line #
38
Alteration
Throughout the text, when a short form of a guide title is used, the first time the entire name should be used with the abbreviation in brackets following. Page 80 line 38 is an example of some of the abbreviations used. “FMP-17 attempts to do the best possible and where values are not adequately provided-for by the ecosystem approach, the provisions contained within other various guidelines will be applied to protect those values.” Clarify – is this a cut and paste error? This passage does not fit within the context of the rest of the paragraph, which talks about protecting habitat on an ecosystem level. FMP-17 deals with site-specific protections. Please add “of the lowest point” immediately before “of the Null”. Are you trying to say the plan is striving for -20% of BNV as a target? Was their any discussion of Habitat amounts through time / trend from today ect., within planning team / LCC.
Completed or explanation of alteration
ok
New Pg #
236.
2.3.3.1
237.
SB
C
2.3.3.1
080
43 - 45
Clarified
238. 239.
DG DC
C C
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
081 082
03 02 - 04
Changed as required Yes there was and pt, lcc decided that anything above the -20% would be good
240. 241.
VT VT
C R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
082 082
07 - 17 09
242. 243.
SB GDL-19
R R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
082 083
11 14
The text on wildlife objectives refers to CWD, yet it is not a target. Should be included as a guideline target. “six large live trees per hectare be retained and 19 other stems to be left.” Include after “19”: (in order of preference: snags, dying trees, and living trees of varying species and sizes> 10 cm in diameter and >3 m in height) will be left on all sites. Change “buffer” to “AOC” Are you stating that 100% of the LC1 stands harvested regenerate to SB1? How can this happen, since you are not harvesting any of the larch, and very little of the cedar, but you are harvesting most of the spruce? Won’t the larch and cedar dominate the stand, keeping it in an LC1 forest unit? This seems as though it should be the end of this section!
Added Added as required
Changed as required Changed to 100% in table
244.
MTY
E
2.3.3.1
083
22
245. 246.
DC MTY
C R.E.
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
083 084
Table 18 01 A forest units Whole Section a) Forest Units
247.
MTY
R
2.3.3.1
084
You will want to update table with complete development info. Eg LC1 development for intensive is SB1 80 LC1 20 This section needs to be labelled “2.3.3.2.1. Forest Units” as per the FMP1996 and FMP Training Notes labelling is incorrect throughout the rest of the plan. Could at least be Section 2.3.3.2 a) Forest Units. Need a description of unavailable production forest area. FMP1996 A-49 Ln 15-21
No, the objectives and strategies in FMPM are separated. Region wanted the obj, strategies, and targets all together, therefore, no way to separate the way the FMPM wants. Changed as required Changed to ‘2.3.3.2.1. Forest Units’
Added description
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
23 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB
Type
C.E
/Table #
Section
Pg #
085
Line #
35 - 39
Alteration
“Figure 11…Figure 15” Why is Figure 15 mentioned in the text ahead of Figures 12, 13 and 14? Figures should be re-ordered/re-numbered to match their reference in the text of the document. Please identify the correct figure. This text is not represented in tabular format as supplied in FMP-9. The information referenced in Appendix 6 would be better suited as part of the plan text in order demonstrate the forest units and there various intensities. Clarify – Is the correct title for the FU ‘SBOG’, or should it be ‘BOG’. I have seen both used in this document. The background info on each forest unit is good, and sets the stage for the SGRs. In general, I found this plan good from a silvicultural planning perspective. For example, the conditionally and not recommended practices seem to be well listed on each SGR page. Please correct the forest unit descriptions that follow to make reference to the correct intensity name as provided in Appendix 6. (i.e. Basic vs. Basic1) Please rectify the text since the present curve is said to represent a fire originated stand yet on lines 21-22 it identifies that most of the natural succession goes to a present curve. Change “Intensivel” to “Intensive-1” Change “Basicl” to “Basic-1” Please describe how an upland PJ1 site which gets treated intensively has the opportunity to become a lowland SB1 condition. Please describe how 20% of the LC1 condition will return to SB1 after renewal if there is no market for larch and little for cedar and these species will remain on site as a seed source. Please describe how most of the succession of an upland spruce site will result in a lowland spruce site. Line 2 describes a Basic curve and line 11 speaks of an intensive treatment. Please correct the appropriate reference to match the SFMM model. Line 24 describes the present curve as fire originated stands yet line 33 shows that only 20% of the MW1 sites return after a fire. Please add text that helps put the present curve in context with the actions occurring in the post fire and natural succession rule sets. Please correct this sentence since the present curve for MW2 is not from fire-originated stands but from successional stands. This section needs to be labelled “2.3.3.2.2. Silviculture Ground Rules” as per the FMP1996 labelling is incorrect throughout the rest of the plan or at least 2.3.3.2 b) SGR’s.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Fixed
New Pg #
248.
2.3.3.1
249. 250. 251.
DG DG DG DC
C R R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
085 085 085
39 43 - 55 77
Fixed Fixed text. Added
252.
MTY/SB
C.E
2.3.3.1
085 & 086 086
Figure 11, Table 21, and line 2
Ok
253.
MK
C
2.3.3.1
Thanks
254. 255.
DG DG
C R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
086 086
01 13 - 14
Changed as required Changed as required
256. 257. 258. 259.
SB SB DG DG DC
E E R R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
086, 92 086, 92 087 087
15, 37 16 – 17, 33 03 20
Changed as required Changed as required Added Text to describe fringes of stand and upland spruce. Added Text
260. 261. 262.
DG DC DG DG
R R R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
088 090 090
19 02, 11 24, 33
This is a forest unit syntax issue Changed Added text
263. 264.
DG MTY
R R.E.
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
091 091
02 22 B SGRs
Changed as required Changed as required
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
24 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
MTY
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
091
Line #
Whole Section B. SGR’s Whole Section B. SGR’s Whole Section B. SGR’s: FMP-10
Alteration
Need to put in that they were developed by an R.P.F. i.e. ”these SGRs were developed by J.J. Jones R.P.F” Please Indicate or reference your preferred SGR by FU in this section.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Added RPF but no name. The plan is ultimately signed off by an RPF and they would take responsibility for the SGR’s Already done in the SGR’s
New Pg #
265.
2.3.3.1
266.
MTY
R
2.3.3.1
091
267.
MTY/KB
R.c.
2.3.3.1
091
You need to list the Not Recommended Treatments as Exceptions and link the exceptions to DM’s Certification and Approval Recommendations within the text if any. Something like what you have stated at the bottom of page 171. Indicate within text that not recommended treatments are listed as exceptions (if any) with the District Manager’s certification, and recommendation approval, however, there are no silvicultural exception for this plan. These section needs to be labelled “2.3.3.2.3. Silviculture Strategies” as per the FMP1996 labelling is incorrect throughout the rest of the plan or at least 2.3.3.2 c) Silviculture Strategies. Please adjust this sentence to describe how SFMMTool 3.x now provides a summary of the area in each intensity within each forest unit and subsequently how this information was used. Please add “hardwood and” before “hardwood dominated” and replace “rich mixedwood” with “dominated forests.” This section says that the silvicultural strategy will be to convert hardwood dominated mixedwood forests to a conifer rich mixedwood. Although this is good, I don’t see in the SGRs how this will happen. Eg: in MW2 intensive, the regen standards state that all 8 tree species are acceptable. The MW1 and MW2 SGRs should have a minimum target amount of conifer regeneration. It is mentioned here that ‘CLAAG is included in the extensive treatments, but that there are not many stands with advanced growth on the forest.’ Therefore, I would conclude we need to artificially treat most SB1 sites. This does not seem to be the plan, judging by the ‘planned artificial’ numbers in FMP-25 (the planned artificial for SB1 is zero). Please explain or revise. Need to Reference Silviculture Treatment Package (STP). Define what a silvicultural strategy through the linkage of SGR and STP (FMPM A-57, lines 3-6). should this be in your Objectives & Strategies section or is it really apart of your Section 2.3.3.2.3 Silviculture Strategies or 2.3.3.2 c) Silviculture Strategies ?
Added text
268.
MTY
R.E.
2.3.3.1
092
01 C Silv. Strat. 02
Changed as required
269.
DG
R
2.3.3.1
092
Added text
270.
DG/MK
R
2.3.3.1
092
10
Added text
The error is with the digital SGR. Which is fixed
271.
MK
R
2.3.3.1
092
30
Revised
272.
MTY/KB
R
2.3.3.1
092
Whole Section C. Silv. Strat Whole Section Unutilized HrWd Strat.
Added STP table
273.
MTY
R.E.C.
2.3.3.1
092 – 094
Leave where it is.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
25 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB
Type
C
/Table #
Section
Pg #
093
Line #
24 - 25
Alteration
“…found on pages 144 and 145.” Comment - Ensure that these page references are corrected after adjusting pagination in the final Plan. Probably better to refer to the section, rather than to specific pages. This paragraph, and the ‘poplar/birch’ utilization flow charts on page 95 and 96, do not explain whether poplar and birch stands will be naturally regenerated or converted to conifer. Is there an overall intent with these stands? (I assume these are not mixedwoods). “Any birch not utilized by the public will be utilized by the forest company.” Clarify – If I’ve read this paragraph correctly, what you’re saying is, any birch that the Company can’t sell will be left for the public. However, if the public doesn’t use it, the Company will. My question is, how will the Company use this wood? You mention leaving unmerchantable wood “scattered throughout the harvest area”, but earlier in the paragraph you say that you’re going to stack it at the roadside. I am unclear on this point. This is a target? Good to see the utilization decision chart for poplar and white birch. Has birch and poplar utilization been an issue in the past? Besides the issues of wood wastage, poor utilization can impede follow up silviculture. These flow charts should be included in the List of Figures. This paragraph on pg 93 ln 39, and the ‘poplar/birch’ utilization flow charts on page 95 and 96. You need to change flow chart and text to indicate regardless of sppcomp when a market exist you will havest. If a market exists you can not leave equal to or less than 100 stems per ha. Unless for Silvicultural / Biological reasons. This is a utilization issue. The same alteration is made to removing harvest conifer only reference in chart. My understanding from the area office is flow charts are to be same thresholds as last plan pg 161 Describe in detail what you are calling exception monitoring. What is the exception to ect, what is the SGR. This needs to be clarified and discussed in further detail in compliance plan and with area/district/regional staff
Completed or explanation of alteration
Ok
New Pg #
274.
2.3.3.1
275.
MK
C
2.3.3.1
093
38
Addressed with new flowchart.
276.
SB
C
2.3.3.1
094
04
Ok
277. 278.
VT MK
C C
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
094 095
10 - 15
removed No silviculture has been effected in the past. ok Flow charts changed as per our meeting
279. 280.
SB DC/MTY/ SB
C.E R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
095 & 096 095 & 096
all Charts And text on pg 93
This was sent then revised .
I mentioned in compliance plan.
281.
VT/SB
C
2.3.3.1
097
The objectives and strategies are defined, concise statements. The following targets them become numerous pages of discussion. The detail provided here confuses our focus on the objectives. Could the detailed discussion be included in other relevant sections, i.e. snags in silvicultural
Needed for description. FMP’s are not easy reading.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
26 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
strategies and featured species habitat in a separate section? Is the habitat text really targets or a discussion of guideline implementation. -Also page 92 your text refers again to strategies further confusing the reader. -Are the actual silvicultural, FTG and old growth targets included here? -Snag tree discussion on page 98 sets out an operating guide as opposed to a specific target. Move “Dead and declining trees (snags)” to the beginning of this paragraph. Change last sentence to read “Snags also play…” Change “The legislation is silent on…” to “The Ministry of Labour direction did not address…” This paragraph needs to better describe the differences between insular areas and individual snag trees. The text should also address how snag retention will be achieved where hardwoods are remaining and intensive treatments are to occur that include aerial tending. Statement unclear. This section does not seem like it belongs here!
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
Changed as required Changed as required
282. 283.
SB DG DC
E R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
097 097
26 28 - 38
Added text describing aerial spray will not exclude snags. Added text It does.
284. 285.
VT MTY
C C.E.
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
097 097 – 098
41 - 42 Whole Section Std. Lev. Snag Reten. 01 - 02
286.
SB
E
2.3.3.1
098
287. 288.
GDL-20 GDL-21
C R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
098 098
01 - 50 32 - 42
Change “…of which are 6 live large diameters, existing or have potential for cavity trees.” to “…of which 6 are of large diameter, or which have existing or potential cavities.” Good approach showing the preferred species. There is no reason to crop these trees as a rule, unless blowdown is expected to be a big problem. Large white spruce and large poplar trees will generally be windfirm in an SF1 condition, since they are in fairly open forest. This is not supposed to be a wood grab, it is supposed to leave tall structure similar to a residual stem immediately following fire. If you are leaving totally live trees, then there will be no health and safety issue. Please describe in the previous paragraph how this will impact the risk to planters as it is described here. Another strategy would be to not allow tree planters to plant when the winds are gusting high enough to blow down snags and dead branches. Modelling moose habitat in SFMM is still a fine-filter approach. Modelling for old growth, which provides some of the habitat features for moose, is a coarse-filter analysis. Needs to be more detail on how these habitat products were produced and how they were incorporated into planning. “The purpose was to provide suitable moose habitat but it is estimated that 70 percent of other vertebrate species habitat needs are also met by the direction in these guidelines.”
Changed
Ok Fixed They consider live trees with dead branches chicots…you find me a tree with no dead branches! I do not understand what you are referencing That is currently in the safety precautions. Added text
289. 290. 291.
DG GDL-22 GDL23/VT/S B
C C C
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
098 098 099
62 - 64 73 - 76 01 – 04 13 -15
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
27 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB GDL-24
Type
R.E. R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
099 099
Line #
28 29 - 31
Alteration
“Rempel et al.” Provide a date with this reference. These two sentences need to be changed to reflect the 2005 situation (i.e. no new moose guidelines, NDPE guide has been developed, new landscape guide in development, etc.) Please omit this sentence or correct the reference. Change “…limitation on moose populations.” to “…limitation to moose populations in the Boreal Forest in northern Ontario.” Criteria are not defined in legislation Please omit this paragraph since this speaks to population management and the application of the Publics lands act where the forest management plan is addressing habitat management under the CFSA. A sentence can be added to reference the closures as a process separate from the FMP. -We should know by now whether or not moose closures will be proposed as part of this plan. -The plan does include a past moose closure area. The criteria for reopening and any review of the closure that was undertaken in preparation of the plan needs to be included. Not certain how this statement fits in with moose habitat. You also need to analyze and report on the ratio of guideline/sub-guideline suitable habitat on the forest vs. inside cores, to make sure that the cores focused on guideline suitable habitat. Remove “These features provide key habitat components for marten.” (redundant) I suggest that you remove this sentence, it is confusing. Your sentence on lines 36-37 of this page makes it clear what percentage of the total forest is capable; that is all that is necessary. Reference to SQL (or) statement for non-capable of Sb+Bf+Ce+Sw<=20. This syntax is incorrect after discussion with Regional Planning Bio it should read Sb+Bf+Ce+Sw<=0 Please confirm with PT and Regional Advisors. . If SQL in not a typo possible model implications and habitat mapping will need to be discussed within the planning team and with regional advisors.
Completed or explanation of alteration
1997 Changed as required
New Pg #
292. 293.
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
294. 295. 296. 297.
DG SB CB DG
R R R R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
099 099 099 099 100
30 - 31 40 45 & 46 40 - 03
Changed as required Changed Changed as required I did not remove but added a sentence stating that it is separate from the FMP process It is up to the MNR and the MPCC and they can initiate this at any time. The plan mentions the current closure and does not need to mention criteria or a review schedule. Clarified Made comparison.
298.
VT
R
2.3.3.1
100
02 - 03
299. 300.
VT GDL-28
C R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
100 100
05 07
301. 302.
SB GDL-25
E C
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
100 100
10 - 11 25 & 26
removed removed
303.
DC
R
2.3.3.1
100
30
Fixed
Fixed and explained.
304.
MTY
E.C.
2.3.3.1
100 107
305.
VT
C
2.3.3.1
101
Whole Section Marten Habitat 02
This section does not seem like it belongs here!
It does.
-Figures 12, 13 and 14 are referenced as having tablular data. None is included on the maps. -Maps are crowded and difficult to read consider changing appearance or including additional maps. Core numbers could be labelled on maps also.
Reference changed to big maps having tabular data. Small Maps do not have enough room. Core #’s added.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
28 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
GDL-26
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
101
Line #
04
Alteration
Insert the term “guideline suitable” here to replace the reference to “suitable”. “Suitable” is usually used to refer to total suitable area (both guideline and sub-guideline suitable). Change “…2002-2022, 2022-2042 and 2042-2062…” to “2006-2026, 20262046 and 2046-2066…” Change “Figures 14, 15 and 16” to “Figures 12, 13, and 14” You need to report on the percent suitable at the end of the 5-year plan. Part of the rationale that made it acceptable to only meet 9.5% at the start of the plan was that 10% was achieved by 2011. Change “Iskodewabea” to “Isko Dewabo” Please provide Figure 14 or reference it’s location. If the area not deferred is the very small area that ended up being modeled as inoperable, no further work is necessary. However, if the inoperable area that is referred to here are the larger stands, then they will need to be deferred, since they were in the model as available landbase. Please provide rationale as to why this core is selected for the first 20 years when it only has 39% suitable and non-guideline suitable area. Change “2021” to “2026” & Change “2041” to “2046” CWD and snags are important components of the marten guidelines. Reference where in the text these features are discussed. Change “Figures 16, 17 and 18” to “Figures 12, 13, and 14” Statement unclear. The Guidelines standard is to maintain 10-20% of your capable landbase in suitable conditions. The number of cores could decrease in the future but this would happen as a result of fewer larger cores being produced thus still maintaining the percent target. The availability of suitable habitat is increasing in the 60 year term and therefore our ability to achieve a greater proportion of suitable marten in cores increases i.e. 9.5%, 12.4% and 13.2% for the periods 0-20, 21-40 and 4160 years. Comment – Since so many of your marten cores (four of nine) do not meet the minimum size requirements, I feel that there needs to be a better explanation of this issue in the text. Specifically, explain why the minimum core sizes are not being met, the approvals/discussion that came from Region for undersized cores, and possible alternatives to address this issue at the 20 and 40 year marks. This section does not seem like it belongs here!
Completed or explanation of alteration
Added as required
New Pg #
306.
2.3.3.1
307. 308. 309.
SB SB GDL-35
R.E. R.E. R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
101 101 101
32 - 33 34 35
Changed as required Changed as required Greg stated at meeting to remove this alteration. Changed as required No tabular data. Fixed At the meeting Greg stated to remove this RA.
310. 311. 312.
SB DG GDL-27
E R R
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
101 102 102
41 02 17
313. 314. 315. 316. 317.
DG SB VT SB VT/SB
R R.E. R R.E. C
2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.1
102 103 104 104 104
40 32
It is there as spatial requirements and is stated in text. Changed as required ok Changed as required
04 - 05 10 - 12
Removed sentence…
There is only two cores under sized. The other join adjacent cores on other forest. The core size not being met is stated due to fragmentation. Addressing this issue is stated during the prep. Of each plan It does.
318.
MTY
E.C.
2.3.3.1
98 - 100
319.
MTY/KB
R.E.
2.3.3.1
General
Whole Section Moose Habitat n/a
No description as to the method for estimating timber volumes explained
These are repeats from earlier comments!
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
29 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
a) Forest Units
Alteration
(FMPM A-49, lines 16-18). No description of the productive forest that is unavailable for timber production (FMPM A-49, lines 20-21). Refer within text that SFMM inputs are found within Volume 3, Appendix 16. Reference that SGR’s are developed for the forest management unit by an RPF (FMPM A-50, lines 1-2). Add brackets around “which will be referred [sic] to as the Manitouwadge Public Consultation Committee (MPCC)” Please reword this sentence as these alternatives were not chosen but are requirements of the FMPM as directed on page A-58. Table 23. In the description cell for the PPMA, omit “above the industrial demand” since this is not the objective but it may happen as a result of modeling. This section is supposed to be “2.3.3.3 Development of Management Alternatives” This Section Needs To be Relabelled “2.3.3.3 Development of Management Alternatives”. Section 2.3.3.2. is Strategies and starts with the definition of a strategy. Followed by 2.3.3.2.1. FUs, 2.3.3.2.2. SGR’s, then 2.3.3.2.3. Silvicultural Strategies or something similar. Missing Discussion: Need to Write a section “2.3.4.2. Comparison of Management Alternatives” to discuss results, not just what is presented in FMP13 and a comparative conclusion and discussion of FMP-14. You have a good start on these sections with some of this in your text already but you need to organize better with the above discussion expansions. Fair amount of text in the beginning of section 2.3.4 Analysis of MA’s that might be better suited to the previous section Description of MA’s. It’s not until page 115 that the comparison and discussion of alternatives is covered. This was supposed to have been done by Age Class and FU.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
320. 321. 322.
SB DG DG
E R R
2.3.3.2 2.3.3.2 2.3.3.2
108 108 108
16 - 17 20 23
Added brackets Changed as required Removed sentence
323.
MTY
R.E.
2.3.3.2
108
All Devl. Mngnt. Alter. 18, 28, 26 Strategies Whole section Anly. Mgnt. Alter.
Changed to ‘2.3.3.3 Development of Management Alternatives’ This is a repeat and gave explanation previously. This is the analysis… what the is sec. 2.3.4.2??? This section is included in 2.3.4 and I do not just compare FMP-13. Remote tourism, silviculture, protection of CH, Marten, Economics…etc. Thanks.
68, 74, 82 324. MTY R 2.3.4
325.
VT
C
2.3.4
109
326.
MTY
R.E.
2.3.4
109
327. 328.
DG MTY
R R
2.3.4 2.3.4
109 109 127
39 - 73 Anly. Mgnt. Alter. 47 Whole Section Anly. Mgnt. Alter. Whole Section Anly. Mgnt. Alter. 17 - 18
It was… added ageclass.
Please adjust the text since the model has some accumulating reserves going beyond the rotation of the forest unit. Need better description of the Benchmark Run (NULL) and should have better Comparisons to Management alternatives.
Clarified text. This is described starting on page 112.
329.
MTY
R
2.3.4
109 127 109 (2nd)
Need to reference where to find the SFMM Input and Output Files.
On Page 127
330.
SB
E
2.3.4
Change “manage ment” to “management”
corrected
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
30 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
DG DC DG DC
Type
R R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
110 110
Line #
08 10-36
Alteration
Please correct this sentence since FMP-9 does not match with FMP-11 because the unavailable area was not put in the correct column in FMP-9. The pieces identified as being in Appendix 6 should be brought into the plan text since these descriptions are necessary to understanding the inputs of the modeling and their association to one another. The intent of an analysis package is to document the decisions and logical progression that resulted in the inputs that are found in the model. Last sentence of the 3rd bullet point. Please reference the associated species or describe why the limit was only placed in term 11 to meet the DFFC. MW2 bullet. The sentence “Because of the …” is incorrect since the AHA occurs at the peak of the yield curve and allocation have been chosen older than SFMM. Table 25. Please ensure that the Silviculture Intensity names are consistent. (i.e. Basic vs. Basic1) Table 25. Please describe why both a minimum and maximum constraint were required for the SB1 forest unit. These constraint are very limiting to the model and it gives the impression that this treatment is very regulated and not dependant on the silvics of the site. The retention of these limits for 150 years also needs to be explained in the plan text. “Table FMP-11 for the SMA is contained in the text.” Please reference the page number. Change font of first line in this paragraph to match the rest of the document. Forest Unit Distribution. Please add text identifying if this is the same as forest unit stability. The last sentence in the paragraph makes reference to information in Appendix 20 that does not seem to be there. Please refer to the appropriate figure or table by its title in order for the connection to be made to the plan text. In the Age Class Distribution section, you state that the Natural Benchmark Scenario was used to set targets. However, earlier you state that only Appendix 3 information was used to develop targets. Which is it? This sentence refers to text in Appendix 20 that is not different than the text provided in this paragraph. Please elaborate the text in Appendix 20 or remove the duplication. Spelling “essential” Silviculture bullet. The last sentence in this paragraph speaks to information in Appendix 20 that does not appear to be present. Please add the appropriate tables to the appendix and identify the tables by there title in the plan text in order to make the connection. Managed Crown bullet. For all of the alternatives please provide a discussion around any gains and losses due to accumulating reserves or
Completed or explanation of alteration
Correct FMP-11 Done
New Pg #
331. 332.
2.3.4 2.3.4
333.
DG
R
2.3.4
111
334.
DG
R
2.3.4
112
For all species. This direction came from Region that for the Mandatory run it should be left wide open. Removed
335. 336.
DG DG
C C
2.3.4 2.3.4
112 112
Changed as required Actually this is to make the model treat the estimated 10% spruce upland that is captured in the sb1 lowland forest unit.
337. 338. 339.
VT SB DG/GDL29
R E R
2.3.4 2.3.4 2.3.4
113 113 114
4th par Para 4, line 1
Changed as required Font fixed
Changed as required
Changed as required
340.
DG
R
2.3.4
114
06 6th par
Changed as required, to data found in App. 20 corrected Removed. Put in text
341. 342.
VT DG
E R
2.3.4 2.3.4
114 115
343.
DG
R
2.3.4
115
Added text that the 10 % decrease due to Acc res. And roads and landings being
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
31 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
rehabilitation of roads and landings etc.
Completed or explanation of alteration
removed and coming back slower. Not sectioning it up
New Pg #
344.
MTY
R
2.3.4
115 127
Whole Section Anly. Mgnt. Alter.
Should be broken out into its own section “2.3.4.1 or 2.3.4 a). Evaluation of Management Alternatives” And add references to FMP-11 & 12. Habitat bullet. Please provide a description in the three mandatory alternatives as to why the habitat constraints were not held constant with the PPMA. The indicator of sustainability is not the assessment of one point in time, see FMPM page A-61 lines 16-17. This is currently modeled incorrectly, please discuss with the Regional Advisors. Forest Unit Targets bullet. Please describe how the trends were calculated and at what point in time the calculation occurred. Please adds this explanation to all the management alternatives. Age Class bullet. Please provide a description in the three mandatory alternatives as to why the age class limits were not held constant with the PPMA. This is currently modeled incorrectly, please discuss with the Regional Biologist and the Resource Analyst. Habitat for selected species section – the last sentence states that the MA is sustainable since habitat rebounds. However, the lower line is meant to be a fairly solid threshold, below which the MA should not drop. It is just as unreasonable to state that an MA is sustainable for wood supply if it drops below an economically sustainable level, but rebounds in decades in the future. These many species out for these many terms has this alternative pushing hard at the bounds of sustainability, and your rationalization is not enough. Please add text in the Summary paragraph that describes the importance of the results between the current condition and the DFFC at 2106. “…missed in Terms 2 and Terms 2 and 3…” Clarify – is this written correctly? “…and Terms 2, 7 through 10 were missed…” Clarify – is this written correctly? “…and Terms 2, 7 through 10 were missed…” Clarify – is this written correctly? Meeting Timber bullet. Please change M-1 to M-2. Please change this sentence since having the targets at DFFC does not constitute the achievement of the target. “The M-1” needs to be M-2 Summary bullet. Please add to the discussion on wood supply what impacts the silviculture limits out to term 15 are having on the model solve and the associated results. Summary bullet. The summaries of the management alternative are an unfair comparison since the volume and wood supply is assessed and
345.
DG/DC
R
2.3.4
116 119
Denis gave wording and I added text
346.
DG
R
2.3.4
116
Added text.
347.
DG
R
2.3.4
116
Denis gave wording and I added text
348.
GDL-30, 31, 32
R
2.3.4
116, 119, 122
?
Talked to Greg and reworded.
349. 350.
DG SB
R C.E
2.3.4 2.3.4
118 119 & 122 Para 6, line 5 & Para 6, line 7 & Para 4, line 6
Denis gave wording and I added text Corrected Ok Ok corrected Removed corrected Added text
351. 352. 353. 354.
DG DG VT DG
C R E R
2.3.4 2.3.4 2.3.4 2.3.4
120 120 120 121 02 3rd par
355.
DG
R
2.3.4
124
I added some text but the summary I only wanted to pull out significant differences.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
32 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
critiqued through time yet all the other indicators are only assessed at DFFC. A balanced comparison should be made and included in the summary for each management alternative. Habitat and Summary bullets. This statement is incorrect since the RBNU falls below the level in term 8. Age Class bullet. Please describe why the targets were not used for all the terms. Habitat for selected species – You should mention here if any constraints needed to be added to the model to meet the habitat targets for sustainability. Age class targets – was any scoping done to determine the impacts on other objectives if constraints were put in to meet all the age class target levels in all terms? Employing Silviculture bullet. Please add some text explaining the impacts of the silviculture limits to the model results. Socio-economic impact – Please change wording or add wording to state based on the model output of SEIM economic indicators, or something similar. It currently reads as “expected to generate” Please provide a graphical representation in the appendix of the plan that compares the various management alternatives for all of the quantitative assessment completed in this section of the plan. Change “Canadian lynx” to “lynx” (consistent with balance of document) Change “SMA” to Selected. SMA- you need to be consistent with this throughout your text and tables in this section. If you are going to be switching from PPMA to SMA state this here and change the PPMA in table 36 pg135 to SMA. Also relevant to Section 2.3.4 Analysis of Management Alternatives pg 113-114 ect. “…previous alternatives as the SMA management alternative (SMA).” to “…previous alternatives as the selected management alternative (SMA).” This Table Was not referred to in the text and can not find….this Figure is found in 2.0 Planning Process and Plan content requirements pg A-63 and A-64. If you are using a different figure please reference in text or direct the reader to the appropriate figure. Need to reference FMP-11 Projected Forest Structure For The Selected Management Alternative.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
356. 357. 358.
DG DG/DC GDL-33
R R R
2.3.4 2.3.4 2.3.4
125 127 125 125 ?
Corrected Text added from Denis Text added
359.
GDL-34
C
2.3.4
125
?
Text added from Denis
360. 361.
DG/DC DC
R C
2.3.4 2.3.4
126 126 ?
reworded Added text
362.
DG DC SB DG MTY/SB
R
2.3.4
127
completed
363. 364. 365.
E C R.E.
2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.5
Whole Section 128 128
Whole Section 02 03 Sele. Of Mgnt Alt.
changed as required changed changed
366.
MTY
R.E.
2.3.5
128 137
Figure A-2 Sele. Of Mgnt Alt.
Table A-2 in the FMPM is stating for information what the indicators are. This is not he the FMP and all indicators that were assessed are in App. 20 Referenced
367.
MTY
R
2.3.5
128 137
368.
DG
R
2.3.5
129
Whole Section Sele. Of Mgnt Alt. 13
Please add the name of the management alternative to which this example is referring.
It is an example …superficial.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
33 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
MTY
Type
E
/Table #
Section
Pg #
129
Line #
15 Sele. Of Mgnt Alt. 29 - 31
Alteration
Change “Were” to “Was”.
Completed or explanation of alteration
changed
New Pg #
369.
2.3.5
370.
SB
E
2.3.5
129
371. 372.
DG SB
R C
2.3.5 2.3.5
129 129
37 Table 27
373.
DG
R
2.3.5
130
18 - 19
374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381.
DG VT DG DG DG DG DG DG
R E R R C R R R
2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5
130 130 130 131 131 131 132 132
23 3rd par 56 20 - 22 36 48 - 49 07 46 - 53
“They are…conifer yields.” Should read: “They are: (1) age class structure; (2) forest unit stability; (3) provision of wildlife habitat; (4) meeting the industrial demand for timber, and; (5) conifer yields.” Please remove the reference to the sub-objective since on line 23 it was determined that the assessment was on the objective. “The Scoring System” Comment – a more descriptive title for this table would be appropriate, such as “The Management Alternative Scoring System” This sentence is not consistent with the target as described on page 71 lines 13-15. Please correct the model to achieve the targets for all terms or add the targets that are to be measured in section 2.3.3.1 of the plan text. Please add the mentioned table in Appendix 20 since it currently is not there. “..out of 4.0 appears is summarized in…” Re-word. Please provide an assessment of the achievement of spatial old growth as defined in the FMP note. Please adjust this assessment or add the target as it is measured here in section 2.3.3.1 since it currently is not defined on page 70. Please correct the table number to 30. Please rewrite this sentence since the PPMA is the only alternative that meets the target. The mentioned tables are in Appendix 20 but require a title. Please add the title to the tables in order to link to the plan text. The targets as described on page 78 lines 1-4 are not assessed here. Please replace the current assessment with one that is reflective of the targets found in section 2.3.3.1 or add the targets for which the assessment was completed to section 2.3.3.1. The SMA is determined through a series of trade offs (ex: wood supply vs old growth) and decisions we make today affect long-term wood supply, habitat supply, etc. To ensure decisions on trade-offs and long-term wood supply are open and transparent to the public and the LCC, NER requires (per recent training messages) FMP text to describe the SMA in relation to some context pieces. Please describe in SMA text, the wood supply projections/ implications/ trade-offs, and habitat if relevant, of the SMA as compared to: • historical utilization on the Black River Forest • forecast from previous FMP • non-declining yield (no increase/decrease)
fixed
Removed ok
Corrected wording and targets in table.
Fixed title ok Added text and reference app. Fixed pg 71 corrected corrected ok Added text and removed no net loss statement
382.
DC
R
2.3.5
132
Table 15
Simply explained that everyone has seen the graph and produced other graph’s…ie birch and poplar
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
34 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
This graph needs to be produced for all species groups. Po / Bw / OC Were trade-offs explained to and bought into by LCC /PAC? That is an very important step. Excellent inclusion in Table 15. Needs to show NDY run and text speak of if LCC / PAC / PT and info center were showed this info Change “Figure 19” to “Figure 15” “…Table 19…” Clarify – You reference Table 19 here, and have a placeholder for it on page 136. First, the Table number is incorrect – there is another Table 19 on Page 84, and sequentially, this should be Table 37. Does this reference FMP-19? Need to change “Figure 19 illustrates…” to “Figure 15 illustrates...” “Three other three elements…”. Change. Change “SEIMS” to “SEIM”. Also define SEIM in this section not the following page. Please add text further clarifying how this assumption was made.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
383.
MTY/SB
E
2.3.5
132, 135, 136
46 – 53, 58, 38, and Table 19
Changed “Figure 19” to “Figure 15”
384. 385.
VT MTY
E E.
2.3.5 2.3.5
134 134
13 19, 36, & 40 Sele. Of Mgnt Alt. 44 - 46
corrected changed
386.
DG
R
2.3.5
134
387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395.
DG DG DC/DG DG DG/DC DG DG SB MTY
R C R.E. R R R C E R.E.
2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.5 2.3.6
134 135 136 137 137 137 137 Whole Section 138
50 52
Please remove this section or add text to section 2.3.3.1 describing this as a strategy and then add the subsequent targets that are to be measured. Please remove the word “preliminary”. Table 19 missing
The assumption was carried forward from previous plan. The more conifer in the future than the indication of how well silviculture regeneration is doing. Text added removed ok ok change “FRAGSTATS” to “LEAP II” ; not yet defined Inserted table changed changed Not going to reiterate aha, but I added a summary of change in area. Clarified
09 11 33 35 Whole Section Whole Section AHA 12 Eligibility
Please replace “forest age class” with “mature and immature” Please change “FRAGSTATS” to “LEAP II” and define Please insert the table provided by the Resource Analyst that portrays the achievement of this test. Please change 2102 to 2106. Change “Canadian lynx” to “lynx” (consistent with balance of document) Please state your AHA in this section, not just refer to FMP-15. Also it would be nice to discuss the changes in area of each FU and the relation to the DFFC. This is not a good sentence.
396.
MTY
E.
2.3.7
139
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
35 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
MTY SP
Type
R E
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Maps 142
Line #
Maps Eligibility 06
Alteration
The Legends are not acceptable! They are unclear as to what some things are. Suggested wording “The proposed corridors for the Ice Lake Road access areas close to lakes designated in the Terrace Bay Land Use Guidelines (Crown Land Use Atlas), as having existing or the potential to have outpost camp operations”. Suggested wording “Detailed planning documentation for the selected primary road corridors and each primary alternative corridor required to access areas eligible for harvest, renewal and maintenance activities for the 20 year period of this plan is included in the … Documentation 6. The Ice Lake Road corridor has potential to affect a remote fly in operation. Suggested wording “The Planning team believes the existing road use strategy has been effective in protecting the interests of the outpost camp operators and should be continued. One outfitter believes the long term roads open to the public and close to designated outpost camp lakes, also permits road based hunting further depleting moose populations required by outfitters to maintain a high quality fall hunt. OR LEAVE OUT COMPLETELY Please provide additional rational for not displaying alternatives since the operations have yet to take place on this road and are not planned for an additional 10 years. Also, Suggested wording of Ln 1-2; “This is an extension of the original road accessing the areas northeast of Ice Lake …” “…before the 2016-2021 Forest Management Plan…” Comment – There will not be a 2016-2021 FMP for the Black River Forest. Under the new FMPM, the next FMP will be 2011-2021. The area biologist needs to review the proposed cut blocks to have input into the residual pattern. Once this is done (it may already have been), you need to make this clear in the plan. Somewhere in this section you should list the two standard conditions contained in the Cultural Heritage Areas of Concern Note, (page 5) November 2004. Please Create Tile Page for this section “2.4. Operational Planning”.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Fixed ok
New Pg #
397. 398.
Maps 2.3.8
399.
SP
E
2.3.8
142
18 - 22
Reworded as suggested
400.
SP
E
2.3.8
142
35 - 36
Reworded as suggested
401.
DG/SP
E
2.3.8
143
01 - 06
Reworded sentence
402.
SB
C.E.
2.3.8
143
05
ok
403.
GDL-52
R
2.4
Added text
404.
MLM
C
2.4
Added text.
405.
MTY/SB
R.E.
2.4.
143 144 144 145 145
Operational Planning 01 - 05 Intro. Sel. Of Areas of Oper. 25 - 30
done
406. 407. 408.
MTY MTY DC
E. E R
2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.2.1
Unclear as to what you mean. Please insert title header into this section “2.4.2. Selection of Areas of Operations”. Bullet # 1. Selection criteria must only select stands that have been shown on the preferred and optional map 7.0. The harvest eligibility map does not show the public what is preferred or optional for harvest within this term. Please revise text and/or discuss with DCR and FMP Specialist if allocations
Explanation. Once the sma picked then planning starts. ok Changed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
36 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
were selected that were not shown on preferred and optional map to public.
Completed or explanation of alteration
added
New Pg #
409.
MTY
E.C.
2.4.2.1
145
410.
MTY
R
2.4.2.1
145 146
411.
MTY
E.C.
2.4.2.2
147
412.
MTY/SP
R.C.
2.4.2.2
147 151
45 Selection Criteria Whole Section Selection Criteria 25 Areas Sel.4 Op Whole Section Areas Sel.4 Op
Please add in “……80/20 rule of the NDPE Guide”.
What is the Ranking of each criteria? Need this stated. how do these selection criteria bring you to your DFFC?
Pg 145, line 19… “…listed
in order of
importance…”
Added
Please add in “……80/20 rule of the NDPE Guide”.
413. 414. 415. 416. 417.
DG SB SB SB SB
C R.E. C C E
2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2
148 148 148 148 148
34 34 Cutover #1 Cutover #2 Cutover #4
Please indicate that there are no Surplus areas if this is the case. Also need to have exemptions linkage to DM’s approval recommendations if any. No “exceptions to implementation manuals …” No “Link to exceptions to DMs certification …” No “Objections to visual concerns …” Process used to protect values is vague Please correct the figure number to 20. Change “Figure 17” to “Figure 16” Clarify: “…the cutover tends to be divided in two distinct blocks when the new cut occurs will join these clearcuts.” Clarify: “…this area will be greater than 6 metres.” Is this meant to read ‘the average height in this area will be greater than 6 metres.”? “The rationale for a cutover of this size is that it works towards meeting the current targets for disturbance patches.” Repeated in two consecutive sentences – remove first instance. (cut and paste error) Adjust frame size on Figure 16, so that X-axis is legible Change “Figure 20” to “Figure 16” (consistent with List of Tables) Cannot read lower numbers on chart Duplicate sentence beginning “The rationale for a cutover of this size…” “The harvesting operations that contribute to this clearcut will occur during the 1991-1996 Plan.” Clarify: are the years correct? If so, should read “…clearcut occurred during” “There are three nearby marten core areas (#3)” Other two cores should be listed. “There are three nearby marten core areas (#9)” Other two cores should be listed. Please refer to the correct table number in the text. Please change the table since the test of sustainability is on the % frequency. This assessment can be retained if it is an objective of the planning team.
Added link to exceptions list. Added link to 2.5
Should be fig. 16 changed clarified reworded Removed duplicate sentence
418. 419. 420. 421.
SB SB/SP VT SB
E R.E. E C
2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2
148 148 149 149
Figure 16 Figure 20 1st par Cutover #10
fixed changed Removed duplicate sentence Changed to past tense
422. 423. 424.
SB SB DG DC
C C R
2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2
149 149 150
Cutover #7 Cutover #8 02
Changed Changed Put comparison in this section and added table.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
37 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB SB SP SP/MTY VT DG DG
Type
E R.E. C R.C. C C R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
150 150 151 151 151 151 151
Line #
04 - 06 06 - 08
Alteration
Change “in 2.3.3.2” to “in Section 2.3.3.2” Change “Table 20” to “Table 38” Link to exceptions noted in DM’s certification … Not found, could be no exceptions Surplus Harvest area identified – Not found in text, perhaps no surplus area
Completed or explanation of alteration
changed changed Added link Added text Ok the link is there ok Stated that residual was based on individual disturbance
New Pg #
425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 431.
2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2
01 02 03 - 04
432.
DC/GDL36/DG/M TY
R
2.4.2.2 & App 19 & App 22
151
11 -20 Plan text & Table 2 and, Compliance plan text
‘Targets were also set for residual structure for each disturbance patch and they are described in Section 2.3.3.2.’ Section referenced not found. Please change the section number since this reference is to the Development of Management Alternatives. Please correct the text since this contradicts the messages given at training sessions. The achievement of residual will be documented not as a summary of all disturbances but on individual disturbances. The rationale for residual achievement in disturbances that contain clearcuts greater than 260 ha will be through the exceptions description. For the remaining disturbances rationale may be provided by grouping similar disturbances together (i.e. those that achieve insular but not peninsular or those that achieve both, etc.) Please contact the Regional Biologist or Resource Analyst for clarification. More text is required around residual achievement and compliance direction. For many disturbances there is a portion that is "projected". Please include specifics on how you will find the residual and how will compliance be measured. Also, text must be obvious in indicating if residual will be achieved on each block. Rationale is required for each block that does not contain enough residual. Also, compliance will be measured against the FMP, not the guide. Therefore, need enough text to understand how compliance will be measured. For instance, NER recommends mapping as much residual as possible. If insular residual is mapped, they can be treated as “floating reserves”, if FMP text provides for this, to allow for operational flexibility and prevent the loss of AHA. Also in text reference if ecological filter / Bio review has been done and determined to be ok as discussed at NDPEG roadshow in Wawa. Please review further direction/clarification that has been provided to the planning team in the training messages and FMP Network and the additional Q&A developed (#25) regarding residual achievement. Please clarify in text on planning teams approach prior to final plan submission. Part of the requirement for allowing mapped residual patches to move around at the operational stage is that a formal review after two years of harvesting (after 2nd AR) be carried out as part of compliance monitoring to ensure that the intent of the guideline and the mapped pattern is being
Added text around clarifying floating insular. Added text about compliance.
Stated that will be met by disturbance as in NDPEG.
Added text
Added text
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
38 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
met. You need to refer to this review here and in the compliance plan as well. These areas are mapped … when the cutover reaches 3 metres”. This does not make sense. Should read “when regeneration reaches 3 metres” Please add text that describes whether residual planning has taken place on the contingency areas or if this will occur as part of any amendments. You also need to make reference on how amendments will handle 80/20 Word maybe should read may be This section is missing “2.4.3 Prescriptions for Operations”. Refer to FMPM 1996 pg A-86 line 32. Discuss relationship to SGR’s and the FOP/AWS process for identifying prescriptions. You need to define how you will operationally determine the high water mark. Add a paragraph to this section listing the values that did not require AOC’s. To show that they were not missed just were not required. Please make reference to FIM and describe the process in the plan text for compliance reasons. No definition of values Need to: Reference sup doc where Values Maps are. Reference to list of implementation manuals used. Exceptions to implementation manuals and monitoring program discussed or referenced. If there are exceptions link to DM’s certification and approval recommendations. If there are objections to visual concerns please specify. If not then state that there are none. You may want to include text beyond the AWS stage. Indicate if any prepost harvest inspections are to be done and include text that SGR may be changed as site dictates best most appropriate. This will be updated to FOPs during AWS implementation Mention the number of planned cc by size class and reference Figure A-4 (cc>260). No mention of Figure A4 for exceptions. Within this section an explanation of where the STP can be located is provided. In addition to this direction, an explanation of what the STP represents would be helpful or reference that the coding is explained in Volume 2, appendix 5. Add “Fuelwood permits will be restricted in all stick nest AOCs.” at the end of the paragraph. Please and in Section header “2.4.4 Forecast of Harvest, Renewal and Tending Operations”
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
433. 434.
SP DG/DC
E R
2.4.2.2 2.4.2.2
151 151
19 27
Changed to suggested Added text
435. 436.
SP MTY
E R.E.
2.4.2.2 2.4.3
152 151 152
35 Whole Section Pres. For Oper.
changed Added section
437. 438. 439. 440.
GDL-39 MLM DG MTY/SP
R C C R
2.4.3.1 2.4.3.1 2.4.3.1 2.4.3.1
152 152 152 152 43 - 45 Whole Section Presc. 4 AOC
Added reference to “estimating the normal high water mark…” G. Racey, Dec. 1997 Did not list The process is in FIM and the plan states
Added supdoc 2 Added link Added link None Added text Added text
441.
DC
R
2.4.3.2
153
29
442.
MTY/SP/ KB
R
2.4.3.2
153 154
Whole Section Presc. 4 All other Areas
This was covered in Section 2.4.2.2, seemed to fit better. A-3 is there 2.4.2.2 A_4 is mentioned in 2.4.2.2 Added link to Preferred table and Supdoc. Not added. MNR enforce where all people harvest fuelwood. The plan gives areas. ok
443. 444.
SB MTY
R R.E.
2.4.3.2 2.4.4
154 154 155
03 Whole Section
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
39 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
For. of Harv. Renew. & Tend. Op. 03 - 04 Forecast of Harvest Depletion 20 & 21 39 - 40
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
445.
KB
E
2.4.4.1
155
The use of the word “restricting” instead of “constricting” may clarify your point.
Replaced word with restricting
446. 447.
SP SP
E R.E.
2.4.4.1 2.4.4.1
155 155
“In the following paragraph … not a sentence Wording suggestion The MW2 MW1 and Po1 forest units have a total of 774, 271 and 319 hectares respectively (equal to 52, 46 and 38 percent respectively of the AHA for each forest unit) allocated in substitution stands” Replace “severe regulation” with “standard “ where it occurs. Need to explain harvest and reserve depletions. Need to discuss the reasons for timber left on site i.e. for silviculture, fuelwood, Include “A listing of both harvest and reserve depletions are located within the supplementary documentation.”, ect. Delete the word “severe”, also delete the balance of lines 3 & 4 You have listed four FU here not three.
Added ‘is’ to complete sentence Reworded text
448. 449.
VT MTY/KB
R R
2.4.4.1 2.4.4.1
155 156 155 157
37 - 02 All For. Of Harv. Depl. 02 & 03 06 For. Of Harv. Depl. 10 For. Of Harv. Depl. 25 - 28
Replaced x 2 Added text Added text
450. 451.
SP MTY
C R.E
2.4.4.1 2.4.4.1
156 156
Deleted severe; left remainder of sentence Replaced 3 with 4
452.
MTY
R.E.
2.4.4.1
156
453. 454. 455.
DG DC MTY/SB
R R R
2.4.4.1 2.4.4.1 2.4.4.1
156 157 157
05 – 18 For. Of Harv. Depl.
456.
DC
C
2.4.4.1
158
Table 21
Are you thinking there will be no fire or are you talking about Bud Worm outbreak or are you talking about all types of Natural depletion?……Elaborate a bit please to make this a better discussion. Please add further description or correct this text since the m3/ha are very different between the planned harvest and the model results. Text needs to be updated to match new FMP-24. Also need to update FMP23 and FMP-21 with new information Need to update mill names. Need to reference the SFL Documents and Appendix E as to ensure that the FMP does not dictate wood supply to mills. Change “Marathon Pulp Inc., formally James River Marathon.” to “Marathon Pulp Inc. (formerly James River Marathon).” “Kimberly-Clark…” In Table 10 of the text (page 73), you state that Kimberly-Clarke has changed to Neenah Paper Company of Canada. This table is an excellent inclusion that shows your renewal program vrs strategic. Just for clarification in text source info is standlist SGR’s (if this is correct) for original FU treated. As it reads source is FMP-25 and numbers of course don’t match because fmp-25 is only future FU.
Added type of natural depletion.
Explained how m3 were arrived at Done Changed “Marathon Pulp Inc., formally James River Marathon.” to “Marathon Pulp Inc. (formerly James River Marathon).” Changed to Neenah Papers
Changed so I am comparing present to future forest unit. This compares the amount of present fu that gets treated and shows where it is going into the ffu.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
40 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SP
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
All
Line #
All
Alteration
No explanation of harvest and reserve depletion, no method used to estimate harvest volumes explained. No discussion of Natural Depletions. Unknown if wood flow is consistent with regional wood supply strategies. No discussion of surplus harvest area. No discussion of contingency area. No reasons for Timber left on site Table 21. Please remove the value of 394 for SB1 Intensive for FMP-25 since it is not consistent with the reporting of the other values in this table.
Completed or explanation of alteration
repeated
New Pg #
457.
2.4.4.1
458.
DG
R
2.4.4.2
158
25
459. 460.
SB MTY
E R.C.
2.4.4.2 2.4.4.2
158 158
29 Table 21 For. Of Ren. & Tend. Whole Section For. Of Ren. & Tend.
Change “Ba-Basic-1” to “Basic-1” The SB1 under FMP-25 FFU is 1948 and under PFU ext. 1948: Int. 394 therefore shouldn’t FFU be 2342? Also check SP1 267 vs. 362 & BW1 453 vs. 358. Please compare in a little more detail planned treatments for 5 yr term vs. the Selected Management Alternative. Also, discuss the methods of seed collection and the stock grower’s methods. Reword sentence to clarify point – suggest “In SFMM, approximately 6,480,395 trees are forecasted to be planted throughout the 2006-2011 plan term.” Change “Table 21” to “Table 39” (consistent with List of Tables) Change “Table 22” to “Table 40” Change “Table 23” to “Table 41” Change “Table 23” to “Table 41” Change “Table 22” to “Table 40” NB: This table does not appear on the List of Tables Change “Table 23” to “Table 41” NB: This table does not appear on the List of Tables Please reword this sentence since the SB1 Intensive and MW2 Extensive treatments vary significantly between the model and FMP-25. SB and PJ are missing a 0 in the table. To reach 2.5 and 3.5 mil Please provide the figure. No method of seed collection spoken to How where the renewal trust fund values used in SFMM derived. Please discuss in text on how value was determined by species and treatment FU and how this meets your program needs. Document decision making process a little better. Discuss Alternatives. Refer to conditions in FMP-17. Need to Reference the Roads Documents Pg162 line 46-47. Refer to more Maps than the “Road Maintenance Map” and “Road Use
The 394 either had a low density plant or planting occurred prior to this plan and now they are being sprayed. Therefore ist would be intensive. completed No the spraying would be of the areas planted or site prepared or left to natural that needs tending. It is compared in the table FMP-25 and SFMM Added text clarified
461.
MTY/KB
R.E.
2.4.4.2
158 161
462.
SB
R.E.
2.4.4.2
158 & 159
Table 21, pg’s 33, 41, & 59 – 60, Table 22 & 23
Changed table #’s
463. 464. 465. 466. 467.
DG DC DG SP DC
R E R R R
2.4.4.2 2.4.4.2 2.4.4.2 2.4.4.2 2.4.4.2
159 159 161 All SFMM values 162 167
03 Table 23 01 All
MW2 was in wrong intensity and the SB1 is very close. Added 0’s It is there added Added text
468.
MTY
R
2.4.5
Whole Section Access Roads
The process is in the Supdoc In the Supdoc
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
41 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Management Map”. Should be a individual map included in the Roads Docs in the Sup. Doc. Discuss the None abandonment of Agonzon Lake Rd to provide continuity between this and past plans. This can be said for all your roads issues This section would be nice to be broken up by “2.4.5.1 Primary and Secondary Road Corridors”, “2.4.5.2 Primary and Secondary Roads AOC’s” and “Tertiary Road Conditions”. Elk Lake Road Was Not Discussed
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
469.
MTY
E.C.
2.4.5
162 167
470.
MTY
R
2.4.5
163
471. 472. 473.
SP VT VT
E R R
2.4.5 2.4.5 2.4.5
163 163 164
Whole Section Access Roads 01 - 10 Access Roads 06 11 - 16 10
No I separated by headings not sections
Added text
Add the word “allocations” Include statement on how the decision will be made on whether the road is naturally or physically abandoned. Late winter moose habitat has been excluded from the list of criteria that if operated under prevent the company from having to seek approval for tertiary roads through unallocated stands. Was spatial availability of moose habitat (particularly late winter) considered in planning? Need to communicate this change with the Area MNR.
Already there On page 164, 36-41 Added text
474.
MTY
R
2.4.5
164
475.
VT
R
2.4.5
164
10 - 18 Access Roads 24 - 31
476.
DC
R
2.4.5
164
33
477.
MTY
R.E.
2.4.5
165
478.
SB
C.E.
2.4.5
165
07 - 13 Access Roads 28
Given that all road maintenance is subject to the listed guidelines and standards it should be stated that unless abandoned, all roads will be maintained and that safety and environmental issues will be dealt with in a timely fashion (as per compliance standards). Text in regard to timelines for water crossing repairs is missing from maintenance schedule A as well. p. 166. Throughout document TEXT/TABLES and appendices CP ect: Replace the word abandoned when discussing roads and water crossings with decommissioned. Abandonment is no longer a term used wrt FRWCI as per FMP training Change “He” to “The Outfitter”.
No this is why it is here. To stop any paperwork. If we need to sed paper back and forth then we don’t need this criteria. Road maintenance is not listed in guidelines but water crossings are, therefore, all water crossings will be inspected and maintained. Added text to schedule A. replaced
changed
“…2016 forest management plan.” Comment- Under the new FMPM, there will not be a 2016 FMP for the Black River Forest. Does not speak to use management strategy thus does not contribute to plan Insert “and” before monitored by the company ‘…signs will be erected, monitored and maintained by the Company.” The word ‘maintained’ needs to be included.
Changed to 2011?
479. 480.
SP VT/SP
C R
2.4.5 2.4.5
165 166
30 - 35 09 - 10
Disagree Not maintained…The sign will be bought by MNR…erected by company…Monitored by Company/MNR and if necessary
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
42 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
rebought by MNR and re-erected by Company. This is not maintenance. Ok added text Repeat It is on Pg. 164 ok Yes included in mechanical site preparation. Was under natural regen…but put new bullet. The numbers are exactly as stated…FROM EXPERIENCE ON FOREST! There is no more
New Pg #
481. 482. 483. 484. 485.
DC CB/SP/M TY SP SP DC
R R.E. R E R
2.4.5 2.4.5 2.4.5 2.4.5 2.4.6
166 166 167 167 167 168
38 09, 10 & 17
Needs to reference all crossings / culverts not just the larger ones. Add in that the Company is also to Maintain these signs. Change “MNR will” to “MNR may” enter into … No discussions of AWS requirements for tertiary roads Change the word “previous” to “prior” Is slash pile burning included in the costs for all intensities? If so include in text and SFMM costs Text refers to estimates for silvicultural support & free-to-grow cruising, but no estimates provided Need to explain the process for the generation of numbers a little more indepth. Unclear, more detail.
14 40
486. 487. 488.
CB MTY MTY
R R E
2.4.6 2.4.6 2.4.7
168 168 169
41 Rev & Exp. 21 Comp. H, R & T For. To Sel. MA. 21 - 22 22
489. 490.
DG DC
R R
2.4.7 2.4.7
169 169
Please omit this sentence. This phenomenon is explainable and is related to the delay in succession. Please discuss with Regional planning analysist for proper wording and getting 2.4.7 run to solve Discuss change in terms of area and why target can not be reached at only 1% originally due to allocations. When solving original error in 2.4.7 this should eliminate PJ1 target error as well. Please discuss with Regional planning analysist You have indicated four not three FUs.
removed Added text.
491.
DC
R
2.4.7
169
23 - 24
Error in 2.4.7 solved
492.
MTY/DG
R.E.
2.4.7
169
493. 494.
DC MTY
R R
2.4.7 2.4.7
169 169 170
30 Comp. H, R & T For. To Sel. MA. 30 - 32 Whole Section Comp. H, R & T For. To Sel. MA. 01 - 02
Replaced 3 with 4
Do you mean preferred and operation maps or just eligibility maps? Please state in text How was the Comparisons done? How does this plan progress towards the DFFC?
Preferred , changed Added text for DFFC
495.
DC
R
2.4.7
170
This statement is inaccurate one species RBNU did fall below as per targets in FMP 12 and you have not discussed trend through time as per FMPM reference of “over time”.
Fixed text
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
43 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
496. 497. 498.
DG MK/DC MTY
R R R
2.4.7 2.5 2.5
170 171 171
09
Whole Section Monitor. & Asses.
Need to supply trend trough time comparison graphs for wildlife species and old growth as per FMP training messages as part of public document so the general public can view this information and see rationale for choosing the SMA Please provide a graphical representation of the conclusions made in this section. The text on monitoring and assessment should say which method will be used; stocking (STARS) or WSFG, aerial or ground surveys. Need to state who is doing the monitoring…it can only be the SFL holder! Also, need to describe how the results will be used.
Added wildlife graphs in analysis of management alternatives In App. 20,comparison of FU, Wildlife, volumes, ageclass, indicies Added text Added text
499.
DC
R
App 05
SGR’s
As your SGR’s are summarized by “preferred” by intensity by FU you need to provide a brief table or some format in text. Stating what the preferred treatment by FU is. Eg is the preferred for MW2 intensive (plant Sb) or extensive Growth and Yield. The text and summary table should be found in the plan text. This information is critical to understanding the intent of the intensities. The description of forest class should also include silviculture intensity. Succession Rules and Other SFMM Inputs. These sections should be found in the plan text. The purpose of the analysis package is to document the decisions that resulted in the information found in the plan text and the input file. The analysis package needs to expand on the differences between the NESI note and the final succession rules, the methodology and description for obtaining the growing stocks left unharvested, etc. Legend is unclear as to what things are such as What are the Alternatives (I know that they are roads but no one else will) and What is meant by Planning_inventory….and why is it partly in the parks if this is harvest? Digital copy not on the provided disk. Hardcopy – this map needs detail such as FU… You have indicated that apx 90% of the Forest is eligible for renewal and tending? Road Maintenance Map- 1.4 km of the Twist East Rd that is planned for abandonment is not shown the same is true for Agonzon Rd secondary, 7.0km. FMP-26 has these 1.4km and 7.0km sections of secondary roads as Maintenance Standard ‘D’. The text of the FMP page 166 line 46 – 47 states that; “Class D maintenance is conducted on roads that will be maintained to whatever standard is required for forest management purposes but will
It is in section 2.3.3.2.2
500.
DG
R
App 06
Moved the APP into text except for yield curves and succession tables. Everything else is in text Moved the APP into text except for yield curves and succession tables. Everything else is in text
501.
DG/DC
R
App 06
502.
MTY
R
App 06
Map
503.
MTY
R.C.
App 10
Map
504.
VT/MTY
R
2.4.5 FMP-26 App 13
Is this Map 6, App. 7? Will fix legend Planning_Inventory is changed to Inoperable. This is the Eligible map. Does not have to be by FU. The 8.1 ASO summary map is a narrowed down version and is denoted by FU and ES type Changed in FMP-26
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
44 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
then be abandoned during the term of the plan.” If you are not planning to abandon any roads than this statement needs to be change or the Maintenance Standard ‘D’ in FMP-26. Showing the differing habitat suitability over the three time periods is the only way to demonstrate achievement of the 12.4 and 13.2 % in the later time periods. Table 2. Please display only the disturbance where planned operations occur. Please modify the table as necessary to reflect the actual total residual area that will be found in the disturbance if the operational strategy is not to add new residuals at the AWS stage. -Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation Map- Legend Unclear. What is Residual, PEN, HIGH and Residual, PEN, LOW? Needs to be discussed either in the text or Appendix 19 -Need to define perimeter pattern. Also consider changing the colour of the perimeter pattern. The current blue is very close to water and is difficult to distinguish. Please change this template since the test of sustainability is on the % frequency and not area. Please incorporate the tables and text into the plan. The *.ana files could be placed in the appendix as additional information. -Text states “Because this is the first time this type of landscape analysis has been preformed..” This was a requirement for the 2001 plan. -Need to specify where FMP tables 4 and 4a can be found, 4 in tables section and 4a in Appendix 21. The Tertiary roads from the previous plan that need to be abandoned after 5 years of age need to be recorded using FOIP as stated in the previous plan. The compliance plan should state how this will be done with the actual roads listed in the annual compliance plans. “most” should be “All”
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
505.
VT
R
App 15
Marten Maps
Added suitablility to the maps and statistics Unable to only display new operations. The actual total residual is there under total residual area. Self explanatory, Perimeter defined pattern colour left the same Fixed/changed Ok did what we talked about Regional analyst wrote this section
506.
DG DC
R
App 19
507.
VT
R
APP 19
508. 509. 510.
DG/DC DG VT
R R R
App 20 App 21 App 21 5 2nd par
511.
CS
C
App 22
All Compliance plan
Not all tertiary roads are to be abandoned. The plan does not state that all 3rd rds will be.
512.
CB
R.E.
App 22
13
17
513.
CS
E
App 22
14
514.
CB
R
App 22
2
38 Compliance plan 18
FOP should be replaced with FOIP.
No most. If it wre all then we would not be able to have foreman unless they were certified. The next sentence clarifies what happens when the foreman is not certified. Changed to FOIP
515. 516. 517.
CB CB CS
C.E. R C
App 22 App 22 App 22
3 4 4&9
11 & 12 1 15 - 24 17 - 22
Overlapping licensees are not responsible for own compliance monitoring duties unless approved by MNR. No MNR approved overlapping licensees on the BRF. Incomplete sentence GWTL is responsible for reporting overlapping licensee compliance Could fuel wood be proposed as a viable market for the wood as every year the number of people looking for wood is growing and the said wood is not
The overlapping will do the inspection while the Licensee approves the report. Corrected Ovl reports and gwtl approves Not stable enough…one year everyone wants it delivered the nest they get it
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
45 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Compliance plan
Alteration
need at the time. Pg 2 references as a example “mill jobs” if this is the example you would like to use please reference appropriately as Employment person yrs (direct/indirect/induced) Please consider the use of the following text or something similar with appendix 25, section 2.2.3 and within FMP text where you may feel it is appropriate. “The socioeconomic impact analysis is not designed to evaluate the relative merits of sending wood to one community over another, nor does the CFSA or the Forest Management Planning Manual require wood to be utilized in a forest resource processing facility within a particular management unit. The primary objective of forest management is the sustainability of the forest which is defined in the CFSA as the long term health of the forest. The FMP does not direct forest resources to a particular licensee or forest resource processing facility (i.e. mill). Decisions around the disposition of forest resources are not made in the FMP, and the FMP should not be seen as an agreement to supply forest resources to a particular mill, or community. While the FMP may refer to wood flowing to particular mills or harvested by particular licensees, this is for information or forecasting purposes only and is not a commitment of wood to a particular licensee or forest resource processing facility. The Provincial Wood Supply Strategy sets policy on maintaining wood supply for industrial use in Ontario. It states on page 41 that: “There is no guaranteed supply of wood from a forest. Wood supply is a product of a forest management planning process determined at the local level that considers such things as wildlife habitat requirements, aboriginal concerns, non-timber forest values, protected areas requirements, long-term community needs, and environmental impacts.” The FMP determines how much area is available for harvest. The FMP also provides a forecast of how much volume is available, and will be utilized. However, the FMP is not the mechanism by which to determine who will harvest the wood or which mill will receive the harvested wood. These determinations are made outside the forest management planning process through licensing arrangements, ministerial commitments, and business to business agreements. While FMPs refer to wood flowing to particular mills, such references are information for forecasting purposes only. The FMP thus reflects external direction at the time it was developed and does not represent a
Completed or explanation of alteration
themselves. Fixed added the disclosure statement to both App 25 and Sec 2.2.3 ie pg 1 of App25 and pg 48 in 1 to 28 of sec 2.2.3
New Pg #
518.
DC
R
App 25
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
46 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
commitment of wood to a particular licensee or forest resource processing facility.”
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
519.
DC
R
App 25
520. 521. 522.
DC MTY SB/MLM
E C E
EA Index EA Index EA Index & Entire prelude
xi xi i – xxi All Page numbers
I suggest you remove section 2.7. This piece does not belong in Appendix 25. Also your definition of Sustainable does not correspond to the FMPM more of a non-declining yield. Lastly your discussion eludes to the fact that the BRF is the only possible source of Fiber for all the facilities associated with historic wood flow, which is not accurate Please add place holder for alts list before public review Well done but would like to see page numbers to the Sup Doc sections referred to. Pages i-iv, as well as xi-xxi, have the page numbers in brackets. Brackets are missing from page numbers v-x. Change for consistency. Update page numbers in Index to Environmental Assessment Components of the Black River Forest Management Plan. FMP-Tables – formatting – use larger font so that tables are more legible. Some headings are missing or hidden. Preliminary Preferred Management Alternative is used in FMP Tables as well as Selected Management Alternative. Keep terminology consistent. Size tables appropriately to page sizes so they are legible. PRODUCTION FOREST LOWNAT (B&S) VALUES ARE SHORT 7HA, CHECK QUERY QUERY ON PRODUCTION FOREST DEPLETED VALUES ARE OVER 7HA, CHECK QUERY BARREN & SCATTERED SHOULD BE CHANGED TO A NAME THAT MORE REFLECTS THE CURRENT STANDARDS IE. LOWNAT ADD MORE DESCRIPTIVE TABLE TITLES FOR INDIVIDUAL TABLES IE. LAND OWNERSHIP 1 CROWN MANAGED IF THE TABLE TITLES ARE BEING NAMED ACCORDING TO THEIR LAND OWNERSHIP CODE SHOULD’T LAND OWNERSHIP 2 BE CALLED LAND OWNERSHIP 6 AS THE PLANNING INVENTORY DOES NOT CONTAIN A 2 CODE FOR LAND OWNERSHIP AND 3 WAS USED FOR PATENT OTHER LAND OWNERSHIP 1 CROWN MANAGED WORKING GROUP BW, AGE CLASS 1-20, BARREN & SCATTERED (LOWNAT) IS SHORT 7 HA AND DEPLETED IS OVER 6 HA, CHECK QUERY LAND OWNERSHIP 1 CROWN MANAGED WORKING GROUP PO, AGE CLASS 121-140, FOREST STANDS, SUBTOTAL AND TOTAL PRODUCTIVE FOREST VALUES ARE OVER 36 HA, CHECK QUERY
OK this part has been removed
I do not under stand It is the entire supdoc, eg roads planning is all of supdoc 6. Ok OK Thanks Terminology changes throughout plan and double checked. Error in sql, should be fixed
523.
KB/MTY/ VT
E
FMP Tables
All
All
524.
JG
R
FMP-01
525.
JG
E
526.
JG
E
FMP-01, FMP-02, FMP-11 FMP-02
Error in sql
Error in sql
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
47 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
LAND OWNERSHIP 1 CROWN MANAGED WORKING GROUP PO, AGE CLASS 121-140, WORKING GROUP SUBTOTALS FOR FOREST STANDS, PRODUCTION FOREST SUBTOTAL AND TOTAL PRODUCTIVE FOREST ARE SHORT 8 HA, CHECK QUERY LAND OWNERSHIP 1 CROWN MANAGED WORKING GROUP PO, AGE CLASS 81-100, FOREST STANDS, SUBTOTAL AND TOTAL PRODUCTIVE FOREST VALUES ARE SHORT 27 HA, CHECK QUERY LAND OWNERSHIP 1 CROWN MANAGED WORKING GROUP PO, AGE CLASS 81-100, WORKING GROUP SUBTOTALS FOR FOREST STANDS, PRODUCTION FOREST SUBTOTAL, TOTAL PRODUCTIVE FOREST ARE SHORT 8 HA, CHECK QUERY LAND OWNERSHIP 1 CROWN MANAGED WORKING GROUP SW, AGE CLASS 101-120, FOREST STANDS, SUBTOTAL AND TOTAL PRODUCTIVE FOREST VALUES ARE SHORT 66 HA, CHECK QUERY LAND OWNERSHIP 1 CROWN MANAGED WORKING GROUP SW, AGE CLASS 121-140, FOREST STANDS, SUBTOTAL AND TOTAL PRODUCTIVE FOREST VALUES ARE OVER 73 HA, CHECK QUERY LAND OWNERSHIP 1 CROWN MANAGED WORKING GROUP SW, AGE CLASS 81-100, FOREST STANDS, SUBTOTAL AND TOTAL PRODUCTIVE FOREST VALUES ARE OVER 7 HA, CHECK QUERY Change “Total for Land Owne” to “Total for Land Ownership” REMOVE 0 VALUE AGE CLASS ROWS IN CASES WHERE AGE CLASS VALUES ARE 0. IN CASES WHERE ROUNDED DOWN TO 0 MAY STILL LEAVE IN? THE VALUES LISTED IN THE % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS PLAN ARE SHOWN TO 2 DECIMAL PLACES AS .00. REMOVE THE DECIMAL PLACES OR POPULATE THEM WITH THE ACTUAL VALUES WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “THIS IS JUST A TEST” NOTATION BELOW THE TABLE? Please add the tables that are currently found in Appendix 21. % CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS PLAN FIELD NOT POPULATED, IS THE DATA NOT AVAILABLE AS IN FMP-5? Where is the table comparing the forest-level spatial analysis from 2006 to 2011? FMP-4a why is their no change from previous plan populated. This needs to be added from last plan FMP-4a and a discussion needs to be included on any changes Please give me a call if any questions
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
527. 528. 529.
SB JG JG
E R R
FMP-02 FMP-02, FMP-15 FMP-03
All
Bottom line
Error in sql Error in sql ok
530. 531. 532. 533. 534.
JG/SB DG JG GDL-37 DC
R.E. R C R R
FMP-03 FMP-04 FMP-04 FMP-04a FMP-04a
It was just a test…it is removed We discussed and decided to leave in app 21 There is no change that is why there is 0 It is added in section 2.3.5 Table FMP 4 does not have change from previous plan. FMP 4a is in sect. 2.3.5 and compares 2006 and 2011 and shows change. Everything is less than 10% and this was
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
48 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
done by Denis Ok included
New Pg #
535.
GDL-38
R
FMP-05
536.
VT
R
FMP-05
537. 538. 539. 540. 541. 542. 543. 544.
JG JG SB DG KB JG KB PG
R R C R E E E R
FMP-05 FMP-05 FMP-05 FMP-06 FMP-06 FMP-06 FMP-07 FMP-07 1 of 1 % Change column
Include a statement at the bottom of this table to the effect that the provincial, regional and sub-regional numbers were based on an assessment from 2001, with an older version of the matrix, and thus the comparison from the forest-level up to the larger landscape pieces is not possible. Bear and RB Nuthatch are noted as not available due to change in habitat matrix and yet values are given for the MU. Needs to be explained. As well unclear as to how the MU would have more hectares of habitat than the sub region would (caribou, spruce grouse and deer mouse). FIELDS IN TABLE SUMMARIZED IN HA, MANUAL STATES SHOULD BE IN KM2 MANAGEMENT UNIT % OF SUB-REGIONAL SHOULD BE % OF REGIONAL AS PER FMP MANUAL Clarify – what does “**” refer to? There is no footnote attached to “**”. Why is there no data in this column? Please complete the section on “% Change from previous plan’ FMP-6 – Please add asterisk footnote as previously indicated “ Not available due to change in habitat matrix. “ THERE IS AN * BESIDE “% CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS PLAN? *” SHOULD THERE BE A NOTATION BELOW THE TABLE? FMP-7 – What is the asterisk for in the heading Land Use Area or General Resource Area? Please add another column for C1505 – Isko Dewabo Lake Complex Conservation Reserve. Land Use Intent – Management of this area is also governed by the general policies contained in the Land Use Strategy (1999). Management Guidelines – Timber Harvest is not permitted. Please add another column for P1504 – Pan Lake Fen Provincial Park. Land Use Intent – Management of this area is also governed by the general policies contained in the Land Use Strategy (1999). Management Guidelines – Management of this Provincial Park is carried out in accordance with Ontario’s Provincial Parks: Planning and Management Policies (1992), the Ontario Living Legacy Land Use Strategy (1999) and the Interim Management Statement, where available. Timber Harvest is not permitted. Please add another column for the G2692 – Pic River/Kagiano River Land Use Area. There is a small portion in the Black Forest, not much. Land Use Intent should read: ‘main intent of the area is to provide increased opportunities for commercial outpost tourism and public recreation. The importance of timber, mineral and aggregate extraction will continue to be recognized. Under Management Guidelines, it should read: ‘timber extraction methods and operations, will be managed in order to maintain the primary intent of the area. Please change Name in Row # 2, Column #2 to G2688 – The Interior. Add under Land Use Intent: ‘Existing Public and Private Roads should
I cannot explain this. It has been this way for 15 years. Thousands of ha is km2 I cannot fix this problem, I can only show the data I am given Repeated comment This is filled in there is no change Not applicable No * removed removed added
545.
PG
R
FMP-07
added
546.
PG
R
FMP-07
Added
547.
PG
R
FMP-07
Added
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
49 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
continue to provide access for resource extraction and recreational activities’. The Management Guidelines section appears fine. Please Change Name in Row #1, Column #1 to G1779 Manitouwadge General Use Area. Please change Land Use Intent to read: - ‘to provide for mixed uses such as permanent residences, industry, commercial and public services, public open spaces recreation, and resource extraction to allow for the continued growth of the community subject to official plans and by-laws’. Management Guidelines should read: Forestry activities will continue in accordance with Ministry approved plans and agreements. What you have there under Management Guidelines is fine though. Please make this table consistent with the land use intent and management guidelines of the Crown Land Use Atlas for Wawa District. See: http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/policylists/ww.html Also include a reference to the Crown Land Use Atlas on this page. I appreciate the reference to Terrace Bay DLUGs, but the Crown Land Use Atlas (CLUA) is the overriding policy direction for Land Use Areas for each district and should reflect this. The CLUA references the DLUGs appropriately. Fix text overlap between “Land use intent” and “Management Guidelines…” columns THE ECOLOGICAL SITE TYPE FOR CODE BW1 IS MISSING SITE TYPES 8 AND 9 THE ECOLOGICAL SITE TYPE FOR CODE LC1 IS MISSING SITE TYPES 1 AND 9 THE ECOLOGICAL SITE TYPE FOR CODE MW2 IS MISSING SITE TYPES 2 AND 8 THE ECOLOGICAL SITE TYPE FOR CODE PJ1 IS MISSING SITE TYPES 6,7,8, AND 9 THE ECOLOGICAL SITE TYPE FOR CODE PJ2 IS MISSING SITE TYPES 1,6 AND 9 THE ECOLOGICAL SITE TYPE FOR CODE PO1 IS MISSING SITE TYPES 11 AND 9 THE ECOLOGICAL SITE TYPE FOR CODE SB1 IS MISSING SITE TYPES 2, 3, 4 AND 10 THE ECOLOGICAL SITE TYPE FOR CODE SF1 IS MISSING SITE TYPES N 10 AND 13 THE ECOLOGICAL SITE TYPE FOR CODE SP1 IS MISSING SITE TYPES 2 AND 9 First FU listed in FMP-8 is “BOG”. First FU listed in FMP-9 is “SBOG”. Which is correct? Please make the required changes as described in the plan text. PO1 PRODUCTION FOREST AVAILABLE (HA) AGE CLASS 101-120 IS SHORT 9 HA
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
548.
PG
R
FMP-07
Added
549.
PG
R
FMP-07
The Black River Forest goes by the Terrace Bay District Landuse Guidelines. I will add a reference at the bottom for the CLUA
550. 551.
SB JG
R.E. R
FMP-07 FMP-08
1 of 1
ok These amounts are in such small percentages they were not added.usually <5%
552.
SB
R.C.E.
553. 554.
DG JG
R R
FMP-08 and FMP09 FMP-09 FMP-09
1 of 1 & 1 of 4
ok
ok Querries were redone, ageclass column waas incorrect
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
50 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
PO1 PRODUCTION FOREST AVAILABLE (HA) AGE CLASS 121-140 IS OVER 36 HA PO1 PRODUCTION FOREST AVAILABLE (HA) AGE CLASS 81-100 IS SHORT 26 HA SB1 PRODUCTION FOREST AVAILABLE (HA) AGE CLASS 101-120 IS SHORT 66 HA SB1 PRODUCTION FOREST AVAILABLE (HA) AGE CLASS 121-140 IS OVER 74 HA SB1 PRODUCTION FOREST AVAILABLE (HA) AGE CLASS 81-100 IS SHORT 8 HA SBOG AGE CLASS 121-140 PROTECTION FOREST (HA) AND FOREST UNIT SUBTOTAL IS OVER 13 HA, CHECK QUERY The SGRs are well put together, relatively compact, and include the conditionally recommended operations. The lead up text to the SGRs should mention that all conditionally and not recommended practices will be followed, as per the Silvicultural guides. Within the regeneration standards box, there are a few items that need discussion: the FTG age is long in some cases (10 years for PJ1 ext); the minimum stocking is low at 40% (particularly for intensive treatments); the acceptable species list is long (eg: all 8 spp are acceptable for MW2 intensive); the minimum heights at FTG are low for Pj, Po, and Bw (especially with long FTG periods)– recommend 1.0 m for Pj, 2.0 m for Po/Bw. Cedar management – I don’t know how significant cedar is on the forest, but if it is, we need some specs around managing for cedar. For example, some form of partial harvesting is recommended in the Silvicultural Guide for the Great Lakes – St Lawrence Conifer forest. Please identify on the SGR the plans for snag tree retention.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
555.
MK
C
FMP-10
Ok, added the preferred STP and SGR into the text.
556.
MK
R
FMP-10
The PJ1 ext on the Black River Forest regularly takes that long. The minimum stkg and heights were discussed at during planning. MW2 is a mixed bag even when treated intensively. We have very little cedar only 9000 m3 and the majority will be left for snag and wildlife benefits since it is on the open market There is no requirement to state snag tree retention on the SGR. It is in the text of the plan in the same section as the preffered SGR and STP table. verified This is a figure in the FMP manual stating the tests of sustainability…does not go in FMP Ok take out of TC
557.
MK
C
FMP-10
558.
DG DC
R
FMP-10
559. 560.
DG JG
R C
FMP-10 FMP-10
Please verify that the rotation ages match with what is in the model fot forest unit by intensity. LOOKED FOR FIGURE A-2 OUTLINED ON A-63-A64, COULD NOT FIND
561.
JG
E
FMP-10
562.
MTY
C
FMP-10
SGR’s & SFMM
FMP-10 IS LISTED IN TABLE OF CONTENTS UNDER FMP TABLES BUT NOT INCLUDED IN TABLES, ALSO LISTED AS APPENDIX 5 AND INCLUDED IN VOLUME 2, TABLE FORMATTING LOOKS TO STANDARD Are you sure that if you leave NE-Ecosite 8, 11, 12 and 13 SB1 for natural that they will come back as you are predicting. Most likely coming back to MW2 as what I have seen.
Ya pretty sure from historical evidence…or we would have no SB1 FTG…veryunrealistic that the SB1 would become MW2.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
51 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
MTY
Type
C
/Table #
Section
Pg #
All
Line #
All SGR’s
Alteration
What do you mean when there is something written such as “Mechanical Natural None”? in the SGR Code Key area?
Completed or explanation of alteration
The heading is renewal and it goes by what takes place first. Ie mechanical…is SIP, Natural…No planting and None is under tending treatment…Not necessary. Fixed
New Pg #
563.
FMP-10
564.
MTY
R
FMP-10
All
All SGR’s
565.
MTY
R
FMP-10
FMP-10
Whole Doc SGR’s
566. 567.
MTY JG
R R
FMP-10 FMP-11, FMP-09
PJ1-03 Int.
SGR’s
All the Average Species Comp’s for FFC and CFC are BW 6PO 2SB 1SW1 therefore improperly populated and does not match SFMM. This is only on the Digital Copy…Make Sure that Digital Copy and Hard Copy Match Describe the Current and Future Forest Condition section is Wrong for all SGR’s. Ecosite Type % FU is incorrectly populated, Avg STK, Avg SC and Rotation Age all incorrectly populated. This is only on the Digital Copy…Make Sure that Digital Copy and Hard Copy Match There is No Preferred indicated for PJ1-03 Intensive1 MOST VALUES IN ALL FOREST UNITS FOR THE MANAGED CROWN FOREST AREA AVALIABLE FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION (HA) FOR 2006 DO NOT MATCH FMP-9 PRODUCTION FOREST AVAILABLE (HA) AS REQUIRED (DOESN’T APPEAR TO BE A ROUNDING OFF ERROR) TABLES FOR OTHER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ARE PRESENT IN APPENDIX 20 FMP-11 – Title should read “Projected Forest Structure for the Selected Management Alternative”. FMP-12 – Title should read “Projected Achievement for the Selected Management Alternative”. Are these correctly titled? FMPM has these tables’ titles as being for the SMA, not the PPMA. Please add the assessment of the non-quantifiable targets. FOR LEVEL OF ACHEIVEMENT AT YEAR FIELDS PROVIDE FORECAST QUANTITY FOR TERMS 3 5 6 9 AND 11. THIS INFORMATION IS PRESENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES IN APPENDIX 20 FOR NON-QUALIFIABLE OBJECTIVES PROVIDE A QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH TIME, IS THIS ADDRESSED IN THE TARGETS FIELD? Rounding error – Black Bear Foraging target listed at 4,670 in FMP-12, 4,669 in Table 17 of text (Page 81).
Fixed
Fixed Table FMP 3, FMP 9, and FMP 11,now match each other
568. 569.
JG KB/VT
C E
FMP-11, FMP-12 FMP-11, FMP-12
yes Ok changed
570. 571.
DG JG
R R
FMP-12 FMP-12
They will be assessed through AOC planning Ok the terms are 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11
572.
JG
R
FMP-12
yes
573.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-12
1 of 2
Bear foraging target Bear winter target
574.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-12
1 of 2
Rounding error – Black Bear Winter target listed at 7,049 in FMP-12, 7,048 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
575.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-12
1 of 2
Blackbacked
Rounding error – Black-backed Woodpecker target listed at 12,118 in FMP12, 12,117 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
52 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
target
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything ok Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Ok fixed
New Pg #
576.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-12
1 of 2
Caribou target
Rounding error – Caribou target listed at 52,073 in FMP-12, 52,072 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
577.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-12
1 of 2
Lynx target
Rounding error – Lynx target listed at 8,634 in FMP-12, 8,633 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
578.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-12
1 of 2
Nuthatch target
Rounding error – Red-breasted nuthatch target listed at 11,929 in FMP-12, 11,928 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
579. 580.
SB SB
R.E. R.C.E.
FMP-12 FMP-12
1 of 2 1 of 2
Objectives column Pileated target
Adjust justification of wildlife species text so that the names aren’t cut off by the column divider Rounding error – Pileated Woodpecker target listed at 27,866 in FMP-12, 27,865 in Table 17 of text (Page 81).
581.
SB
R.E.
FMP-12
1 of 2
582. 583.
SB MTY
C R
FMP-12 FMP-13
2 of 2
Unit of measure column Conifer yields
No unit of measure given for wildlife species
584.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-13
1 of 2
Bear foraging target Bear winter target
Clarify – Conifer yield for Term 9 is 153,771. It is 153,000 for all of the other terms. Is this a rounding error? Table values are not consistent with SFMM model Case File “2nd_IC_BKRF_220305” Mandatory 1_130705, Mandatory 2_130705, Mandatory 3_130705, and PPMA_June_23_2005. Focus on Management Alternatives. Rounding error – Black Bear Foraging target listed at 4,670 in FMP-12, 4,669 in Table 17 of text (Page 81).
no I double checked this table and it is up-todate. I do not see any thing wrong. I t is really hard to actually check something if you do not put anything that is wrong. Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the
585.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-13
1 of 2
Rounding error – Black Bear Winter target listed at 7,049 in FMP-12, 7,048 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
586.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-13
1 of 2
Blackbacked target Caribou target
Rounding error – Black-backed Woodpecker target listed at 12,118 in FMP12, 12,117 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
587.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-13
1 of 2
Rounding error – Caribou target listed at 52,073 in FMP-12, 52,072 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
53 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything Not an error, it is what one program does and another doesn’t do. No change since 1 hectare out of 253,000 hectares on the forest will not significantly change anything fixed
New Pg #
588.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-13
1 of 2
Lynx target
Rounding error – Lynx target listed at 8,634 in FMP-12, 8,633 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
589.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-13
1 of 2
Nuthatch target
Rounding error – Red-breasted nuthatch target listed at 11,929 in FMP-12, 11,928 in Table 17 of text (Page 82).
590.
SB
R.C.E.
FMP-13
1 of 2
Pileated target
Rounding error – Pileated Woodpecker target listed at 27,866 in FMP-12, 27,865 in Table 17 of text (Page 81).
591.
SB
E
FMP-13
1 of 2
592.
SB
R.C.
FMP-13
1 of 2
593. 594. 595.
SB SB JG
C C E
FMP-13 FMP-13 FMP-14
2 of 2 2 of 2
Redbreasted Nuthatch Redbreasted Nuthatch Conifer yields Conifer yields
Change “Nut-hatch” to “Nuthatch”
Clarify – why aren’t there any values under Man-1, Man-2 and Man-3 for the Red-breasted Nuthatch? Clarify – Conifer years in FMP-12 are measured in ha/yr, but the unit of measure in FMP-13 is m3. Which is correct? Conifer yield under PPMA is listed at 153,279. This doesn’t match the values in FMP-12. Is this a rounding error? TOTAL DESIGNATION NOT NECESSARY FOR EACH MEASURE IN EACH FOREST UNIT IE. TOTAL REVENUE CAN BE LISTED AS REVENUE. TIMBER PRODUCTION POTENTIAL NO FUNDING LIMIT FIELD HEADER HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO READ UNRESTRICTED FUNDING AND TIMBER PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AVAILABLE REVENUES HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO READ TIMBER PRODUCTION POTENTIAL RESTRICTED FUNDING Table values are not consistent with SFMM model Case File “2nd_IC_BKRF_220305” Mandatory 1_130705, Mandatory 2_130705, Mandatory 3_130705, and PPMA_June_23_2005. Focus on Management Alternatives. FMP-15 – Title should read “Projected Harvest Area and Volume for the Selected Management Alternative” FOREST UNIT SB1 PAST TERM 2001-2006 CITE AVERAGE ANNUAL VALUES FROM 2001-2021 FMP. ALL OTHER FOREST UNITS CITE TOTAL FOR TERM VALUES FROM 2001-2021 FMP. TOTALS FOR PAST TERM 2001-2006 ALSO INCORRECT AS A RESULT. USE TOTAL FOR TERM VALUES FOR SB1.
fixed
fixed This is the average for Terms 10-Term15 that is why it is different than FMP12 Changed It says the same thing. Fits better
596.
MTY
R
FMP-14
597. 598.
KB JG
E R
FMP-15 FMP-15
I double checked this table and it is up-todate. I do not see any thing wrong. I t is really hard to actually check something if you do not put anything that is wrong. ok The past term 2001-2006 is the total for the 5 year term for a total of 5,807ha. There is only one average annual under first term and it is totalled which would be the same for year 6-10 and year 11-15 and 16-20 are the same. Nothing corrected ok
599.
JG
C
FMP-15,
SEE NOTE AT BOTTOM OF TABLE REGARDING ROUNDING OFF ERRORS.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
54 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
MAYBE OTHER TABLES REQUIRE THIS NOTE AS WELL? FMP-16 - Title should read “Projected Forest Unit Transitions for the Available Harvest Area.” PROJECTED CHANGE IN FOREST UNIT AREA % FOR LC1 IS NOT CORRECT. UPDATE VALUE TO REFLECT CHANGES INDICATED ABOVE SOME OF THE TOTALS IN THE CONVERSION TO NON-FOREST AREA (HA) ARE OFF BY 1 – 4 HA (TABLE SHOULD ADD AND THEN ROUND OFF IN TOTAL TO SOLVE PROBLEM?) ALSO SEE TO LC1 LACK OF VALUE IN THIS FIELD Table values are not consistent with SFMM model Case File “2nd_IC_BKRF_220305”, “PPMA_June_23_2005”. Check Your Fram Export. TOTAL AVAILABLE HARVEST AREA SHOULD EQUAL TOTAL AVAILABLE HARVEST AREA FOR THE PREFERRED MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE IN FMP-15 (LC1 & TOTAL). CHANGE VALUES AVAILABLE HARVEST AREA (HA) FOREST UNIT SUBTOTALS SHOULD MATCH THE HARVEST AREA IN THE SELECTED MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE IN FMP-15 (SOME FOREST UNIT SUBTOTALS OUT BY 1 HA AND TOTAL AVAILABLE HARVEST MATCHES FMP-15) -Tertiary roads- Needs to be consistent with Sup Doc. “No tertiary roads are allowed in the AOC”. -This current arrangement of AOC’s does not address unknown fisheries values (what is called WQ in the current plan). It has been discussed in text and therefore needs to be addressed here. -Why label this WQ (water quality) when your description of the AOC is fish habitat. Given the current and other plan coding this will be a source of great confusion. Provide location tables for all AOC groups. Location tables should provide easy reference to maps. Block numbers would also be useful. For fish habitat prescriptions there should be an indication of the AOC width in the table and on the maps.
Completed or explanation of alteration
ok fixed A computer does the rounding not me. Read the foot note
New Pg #
FMP-16 600. 601. 602. KB JG JG E R R FMP-16 FMP-16 FMP-16
603.
MTY
R
FMP-16
604.
JG
R
FMP-16
This is directly off of the FU transitions through Post renewal succession then multiplied by 5 so that it is for the term. fixed
605.
JG
R
FMP-16, FMP- 18, FMP-19 FMP-17 CR FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 WQ
Rounding no fix
606.
VT
R
They are allowed as long as you follow the protocol. Changed to address both known and unknown.
607.
VT
R
608.
MLM
C
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07
609.
MLM
R
610.
MLM
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 FMP-17 Sup Doc 07
Are there no Known Cultural Heritage Sites on the management unit? If they are near operations, the appropriate documentation must be provided. In some of the Sup doc. Part II does not have the correct format. (eg NS you have an alternative but are using Section A specific direction in implementation manual. If you are using section C- alternatives or rational for not having any alternatives is required). See FMPM Appendix VII for correct format.
The tables are in FMP-17 The reference is by Poly ID which is unique on the entire forest and there is no requirement to have distances on the map at the FMP only at the AWS stage.Also the maps are to scale and a measurement can be taken at anytime. No Know Cultural Heritage Sites
Ok tried to fix
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
55 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
MLM
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
If you have not used a guide directly or with only sight modification use section C and present alternatives or rational. The AOCs that do not have specific guides (eg. owls) or that are not for the boreal forest should use section C. You can use your adaptation from guides (e.g. from the GLSL) as rational for your alternative. Are there any permanent sample plots located near operations? If so appropriate documentation must be provided. An index of the AOC’s would be useful
Completed or explanation of alteration
Ok tried to fix
New Pg #
611.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07
612.
MLM
R
613.
MLM
C
614.
VT
R.C.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 WQ-R
Repeat no
Did not make list
- Need clear language on AOC. Is it a 3 meter reserve? The term modified reserve is used- is this different? The RCof P has a 3 meter undisturbed reserve. -Description- AOC to protect cold water fish habitat. How is this different from other AOC. -Road planning for intermittent streams?? - Why this AOC? Does it address compliance/ planning issues (shoreline harvesting)? Typically intermittent streams are not mapped, therefore we cannot plan their location. (Yet, the AOC does include a populated Table 1 and 2.) Those that show up are considered permanent. The riparian code of practice is typically to protect those unmapped creeks that are encountered on the ground. All All All AOCs Inactive nests how is being determined. Need to state in text by MNR? NRVIS records / Company Records Now that allocations are done and for final plan you need to replace Primary/Secondary Road: TBA with proper answer Were there no objections for any of the AOC prescriptions? Please be sure to note any objections in the final FMP. Terminology is inconsistent and confusing. The proper terminology to use (per FMPM) is as follows: AOC width – includes dimensions of reserve and modified operations Reserve – means no harvesting permitted; do not say “no-harvest reserve”. That is inherent. Also, redundant to say “no harvesting, renewal, or tending is permitted in reserve”. Modified – includes any operations that are different than normal, such as harvesting, renewal & maintenance restrictions, timing restrictions, no-road zones, road abandonment zones, viewscapes, etc. Please revise all AOCs to use this consistent terminology. You may want to include text under Tertiary road conditions, such as: Water crossings include all permanent and temporary crossings but do not
615. 616. 617.
DC DC DC
R R C
FMP-17 FMP-17 FMP-17 AOC Sup. Doc. FMP-17 AOC Sup. Doc.
It is not a reserve but modified area. The RC of P states that an undisturbed forest floor and vegetation but also say that trees can be remove. Cold water is covered under WQ. It is done Well the data that GWTL received from MNR has intermittent streams and they were in the lasst plan. Unmapped creeks are treated as a normal creek and a proper slope dependant reserve would be added. The code of practice is for intermittent mapped or not. Ok, stated in FMP-17 ok ok
618.
DC
R
All AOCs
fixed
619.
DC
C
FMP-17
CH
Ok added text
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
56 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
include the replacement of existing water crossings where disturbance is contained within the area of previous ground disturbance. Also : All proposed roads and landings, water crossings and aggregate permit areas as defined above and occurring within High Potential Cultural Heritage AOCs will require an MCL Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment, unless the development meets the criteria of minimal ground Disturbance ( you need to leave yourself an option in the FMP to do x-ings and roads if a MCL stage 2 is done)
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
The aggregate and landings will require this but not roads if the precautionary principal is used
620. 621.
DC DC
C R
FMP-17 FMP-17
CH MA
You need to include a AOC for known sites if any exist on the forest as well MAFA Tertiary Roads. In bullet point one need to delete second sentence starting at “except” You can put something similar to bullet point two in place such as “Where no other reasonable alternative exists road construction may be permitted within the AOC pending the review and approval of the proposal by MNR” - Part III is missing
None We have had areas that the only way in was to go through the MAFA. This is preapproved by MNR. The bio has no problem here. Added text
622.
VT
C
FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 NS FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 NG FMP-17 FMP-17 FMP-17 FMP-17 FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NG FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: WQ 1
Part III
623.
VT
E
Tables
-Tables 1 and 2 are labelled “Osprey”. Also seen in NC and NL. -Include inactive nest prescription. (For all nest AOC’s)
fixed
624. 625. 626. 627. 628.
DC DC DC DC SB
C R R R E
WQ WQ WQ WQ AOC Identifier AOC identifier
Reference to in stream work where demonstrated the activity will not negatively effect fish habitat. Please clarify what is meant here Tertiary Roads. Bullet Point One: Please add at end of sentence subject to MNR approval in the AWS. Reference to critical fish habitat how will this be determined? This needs to added in text Reference to how high water mark will be measured operationally Add “Nests” after ‘Goshawk’
fixed fixed fixed fixed ok
629.
SB
R
1
Should be FH, not WQ
fixed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
57 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB
Type
R.E.
/Table #
Section
Pg #
1
Line #
Description
Alteration
Change “buffer” to “modified management area” or “MMA” (two instances)
Completed or explanation of alteration
fixed
New Pg #
630.
631.
SB
C
632.
SB
C
633.
SB
R.E.
634.
SB
C
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: WQR FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: CL FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: RR FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: WQ FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NL
1
Para 1, line 1-2 Part 1
“There is to manage all small cottage lot…” Clarify – this phrase does not make sense. Clarify – what constitutes ‘upland’ or ‘lowland’ in regards to this AOC?
fixed
1
fixed
1
Part 1
Description of Values should read: “The values to be protected are cold, cool and warm water fish habitat” Add after ‘…breeding populations’: “Vacant stick nests (including raven nests) in good condition may be utilized by a variety of raptor species, but are critical to several species of owl that are found on the Black River Forest” Add after ‘…breeding populations’: “Vacant stick nests (including raven nests) in good condition may be utilized by a variety of raptor species, but are critical to several species of owl that are found on the Black River Forest” Add after ‘Tree planting may take place after June 1st’: “Tree planters will be informed by the site foreman that they are planting in a sensitive area, and will be advised to keep noise and activity to a minimum.” “…aerial application of herbicides is prohibited from 400 metres to line of sight or a maximum distance of 800 metres from the nest…” Obviously, an aircraft applying herbicides will be above the line of sight model that is used for ground operations. Further, the guideline considerations toward herbicide application consider more than the physical disturbance and activity. Eagles have proven rather susceptible to chemical toxins. The restriction on aerial herbicide applications should remain at the full 800m from the nest, rather than the line-on-sight model. The FMP-17 table states “renewal is not permitted in the [MMA]…” This is contradictory to the Sub-Doc, which states “Tree planting may take place…after June 1st.” Tree planting in the MMA after June 1st was in the prescription that I approved in June 2005. I have no problems with this activity, however, whichever direction the Company plans on taking, there needs to be consistency between the FMP-17 table and the Sub-Doc.
fixed
1
Part 1, para 1
fixed
635.
SB
C
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NS
1
Part 1, para 1
fixed
636.
SB
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NE
1
Part 2
fixed
637.
SB
R.C.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NE
1
Part 2
fixed
638.
SB
R.C.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NE
1
Part 2
fixed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
58 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB
Type
R.C.
/Table #
Section
Pg #
1
Line #
Part 2
Alteration
The FMP-17 package that I approved in June 2005 included a harvest prescription that stated: “Selective harvest only within MMA. Details to be discussed.” There was no further discussion on this topic (a shortfall on the parts of both the Company and MNR). However, the fact still remains that the approved AOC package stated Selective harvest NOT “Normal harvest is permitted in the MMA outside of the timing restriction.”, which is what appears in the draft FMP-17 table for goshawk. Harvest prescription is not specified in Sup-Doc 7. At the very least, the harvest prescription should be similar to that for osprey: “Selective harvesting will consist of clearcutting in a non-contiguous harvest pattern removing approximately less than 50% of the MMA. The selective harvest method will assist in meeting the required number of snags and will be done during the preparation of the AWS.”
Completed or explanation of alteration
Added text from our discussion.
New Pg #
639.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NG
640.
SB
R.C.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NG
1
Part 2
The package that I approved in June 2005 included the following statement: “No operations within the MMA from March 01 through July 31.” The Sub-Doc submitted with the draft plan contains the following statement: “Tree planting may take place from 50 to 150 metres from the nest during optimal planting time.” The latter statement is in conflict with the prescription that I approved in June. Add after ‘Tree planting may take place after June 1st’: “Tree planters will be informed by the site foreman that they are planting in a sensitive area, and will be advised to keep noise and activity to a minimum.” The package that I approved in June 2005 included the following statement: “No operations within the MMA from March 01 through July 31.” The Sub-Doc submitted with the draft plan contains the following statement:
fixed
641.
SB
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NH
1
Part 2
fixed
642.
SB
R.C.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NL
1
Part 2
fixed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
59 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
“Tree planting may take place from 50 to 150 metres from the nest during optimal planting time.” The latter statement is in conflict with the prescription that I approved in June. Add after ‘Tree planting may take place after June 1st’: “Tree planters will be informed by the site foreman that they are planting in a sensitive area, and will be advised to keep noise and activity to a minimum.” The package that I approved in June 2005 included the following statement: “No operations within the MMA from March 01 through July 31.” The Sub-Doc submitted with the draft plan contains the following statement: “Tree planting may take place from 50 to 150 metres from the nest during optimal planting time.” The latter statement is in conflict with the prescription that I approved in June. “Aerial application of herbicides is prohibited from 30 to 150 metres from the nest during March 1st to July 31st, special care must be made no [sic] to spray the nest tree.” should read: “Aerial application of herbicides is prohibited to 150 metres from the nest tree, form March 1st to July 31st. Outside of the timing restriction, special care must be made not to spray the nest tree.” Missing part of the reserve description. Should read: “No road construction, harvesting, renewal or tending operations may take place at any time within 200 metres of the nest, nor within 70 metres of the shoreline of any waterbody or watercourse (measured from the high water mark) within the AOC.” This is consistent with FMP-17 Change “…area referred to as the outer buffer.” to “modified management area.” - “Aerial application of herbicides is not permitted at any time.” End sentence here. Where new values are found they will be protected
643.
SB
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NO
1
Part 2
fixed
644.
SB
R.C.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NS
1
Part 2
Added text that we discussed
645.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NS
1
Part 2
Added text that we discussed
646.
SB
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NO
1
Part 2, para 1
fixed
647.
SB
R.E.
648.
VT
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NO FMP-17
1
Part 2, para 1 Part II A.1
fixed
1
fixed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
60 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
accordingly. Delete text regarding “September 1st”. Amend FMP-17 accordingly. -To be consistent discussion of inactive nest prescriptions should be discussed here as well. -“Aerial application of herbicides is not permitted at any time.” End sentence here. Where new values are found they will be protected accordingly. -Tertiary Roads- Sup Doc and FMP-17 do not agree -Omit “except where a nest has been established after a renewal treatment has taken place.” Where new values are found they will be protected accordingly. -FMP-17 Tertiary roads- “..may not be constructed or used during the period…”. The word “used” needs to be added to be consistent with the Sup Doc. -FMP- 17 Under Reserve includes an “and” section. Is this necessary here, not consistent with other AOC’s. -Under renewal- remove “the perimeter of the colony”. When listing values in order of importance, the value for the which the AOC has been developed should be listed first. Ex. In the CL sup. doc. The values listed in priority would be cultural heritage, coldwater fisheries, cool/warm water etc. This section is not applicable to CH.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
Sup Doc 7 NH
649.
VT
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 NG FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 NO
1
Part II A.1
fixed
650.
VT
R
1
Part II 1a
fixed
651.
VT
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 CL FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 CL FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 CH FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 CH FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 TC FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 (AOC) CH & Roads Sup. Doc.
1
Sec 1a
Added CH AOC is modified therefore others are more important
652.
VT
R
1
Sec 1b
Added n/a
653.
VT
R
1
Sec 1b Sec 2. Sec. 1a
This section is not applicable to CH. Location: Tables blank. When listing values in order of importance the value for the which the AOC has been developed should be listed first. Ex. In the CH sup. doc. The values listed in priority would be cultural heritage, coldwater fisheries, cool/warm water etc. These sections are not applicable.
Added n/a. Put in Numbers ok
654.
VT
C
1
655.
VT
R
1
Sec. 1a,b
Added n/a
656.
VT
R
2
Gullivr Lake Road
-Summer construction of roads within the AOC. Is this for crossing the AOC only when necessary (water crossings) or can roads be built randomly within the AOC? Should be clear in this section and Sec. D tertiary roads. -Part III For the Gulliver lake Road, the text states the AOC may be impacted for 160 meters (on the east side of Elk Lake?) Area is unclear on map. Road corridor is seen extending into water quality reserves but no modified operations area is seen on the map. Crossing #9 has a CH
Only where crossings are located. This is clearly identified now
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
61 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
adjacent to it –does this mean #9 crossing has a CH value. - Needs to be a set distance that road must be from lake or agree to jointly agree upon at AWS approval stage (after inspection). However only guessing because.. - No proposed road location is given within the corridor. Required? -Crossing # 13 will cross a CH AOC- correct. Area of the AOC is not defined on the map. -If I read this correctly, there are two unique CH values that are impacted by operations, crossing #13 and the 160 m section (#9??). Not readily clear- if all contact with the AOC were listed and described in 3A it would be clearer. -Documentation describes corridor #1 and alternative A. Are these the same thing? Not consistent with Roads sup doc which uses alternatives 1and 2. -Only the preferred corridor location is shown on the map. Should all alternatives be shown? Were not shown on current plan ASO maps but map is included with the roads Sup Doc showing each alternative This greatly aids location comparison. -Corridors need to be labelled with road name and road type (secondary and primary) -Public comments not complete for Roads sup doc. -Section 3c. – “A 30 m slope”… -Identifies 3 Alternatives A, B, and C. Inconsistent with Road Sup Doc where only Alternatives 1 and 2 are given. -Alternative 1(A) is proposed. According to this sup doc this alternative does not impact the value only alternative (C). Yet, a TC AOC is present along the preferred road corridor and crossing #5 shown on basemap 57538. -Proposed road location- need to identify and alternatives clearly. -3a- Which road alternative does the AOC impact – NA? Perhaps crossing # would be NA -NL value is not clearly identified on the ASO map -FMP-17- Tending prescription inconsistent with Sup Doc. “Location of Water Fisheries…” Should this be “Cold Water Fisheries”? “Location of Water Fisheries…” Should this be “Cold Water Fisheries”? -Alternatives A and B describe contact with fisheries AOC’s not the MA AOC. Need to clarify if the “B” alternative runs adjacent to or through the MA. -Alternatives not shown therefore difficult to comment. (same comments as
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
Not required Road line was re-evaluated and at this point will not affect the CH value 13. it is removed. #9 will cross the outer edge of a CH value and all precautions will be taken. Clarified in supdoc. No corridor 1 refers to the corridor and the A refers to the crossing number. On the ASO map only the selected is shown. If both were shown then it would confuse operations. Added map to the supdoc with alternate corridors. Corridors are labelled completed Clarified in the supdoc
657.
VT
R
FMP-17 Supp Doc 7 TC
3
Gullivr Road
658.
VT
R.C.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 NL
3
Part III
clarified
659.
SB
C.E.
660.
SB
C.E.
661.
VT
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: WQ FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: WQ FMP-17 Supp Doc
3
Table 2
fixed
3
Table 3
fixed
4
Poppy South Road
Fixed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
62 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
above. -Basemap 50544 not on forest
Completed or explanation of alteration
Fixed removed Error in cut and paste Only the selected ones are to be shown This value is in alt-2 therefore removed from supdoc This is all one corridor It is an extension abut not labelled that way Removed ok ok ok Will populate but not removing. This was agreed to at the beginning incase value found ie. Stick nests. Ok
New Pg #
7 MA
662.
VT
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 (AOC) CH & Roads Sup Doc
6
Poppy South Road
663. 664. 665.
GDL-50 MLM VT
R R R.C.
FMP-17 FMP-17 FMP-17 AOC Sup Doc
All All All
All All All
666.
MLM
R
667.
SB
R.C.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: WQR
All
All
-Unclear as to where the text is referencing- both the Beeline West Road and Basemap 50545 are on the Big Pic Unit. -Again, only 1 corridor is shown on the map (61545) and a clear understanding of the text and references made to the maps are impossible to make without proper labelling of corridors and all watercrossings. -Inconsistent referencing of alternatives. -Why does the map show a corridor on the Poppy South Road approx.1.5 km before junction of the proposed Poppy South Road? This portion is not described in the text. - This should be better labelled as an extension of the current Poppy South road? -Crossing #18 not labelled on map. -Same comments as Gulliver Lake Road with regard to labelling. -Part IV- last sentence “”for ongoing operation”…… “operations may be suspended.” Any changes made to prescriptions in Table FMP-17 must be reflected in the appropriate Supp Doc. Ensure FMP-17 says the same thing as the Supp Doc. It is not an abbreviation of the Supp Doc. Ensure any objections are noted. General comment- Table 1 and 2 are blank in a number of AOC’s. Populate or remove if value does not occur in planning. -Fair number of inconsistencies between FMP- 17 and Sup Doc. Suggest reorganizing Sup Doc to a bullet style and keep the same heading for all AOC’s similar to FMP-17. Ex. Under Description headings could include: Reserve, (Active and Inactive nests), MMA, etc. -For clarity always specific the width of reserves and MMA’s. Ex. In FMP -17 under Prescription: 150 m AOC including a 50 m reserve and a 100m MMA. ---Try to be consistent with terminology for AOC zones (modified reserves, MMA, buffer zones) -FMP-17- Under Reserve. Listing of smaller reserves which may be captured within a larger reserve is included in Section 1a of Sup Doc. and is unclear and not consistently applied in FMP-17. - Current plan contains an AOC which describes Moose Closures. Need to ensure carry through of the Moose closure info into this plan, either in text or sup doc. The description of the value must tie into the AOC type, the description is not just related to fisheries/water quality. This AOC prescription does not apply to all riparian areas. Change description to read “This AOC covers intermittent streams and riparian areas of those warmwater waterbodies and watercourses where the slope of the
Not contained in FMP anymore ok
All
All
changed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
63 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
shoreline is no greater than 15%, and where it has been proven through field assessment that there are no areas of critical fish habitat.” NB: this prescription was not in the package that I approved in June 2005 In Jeremy’s original draft of the FMP-17 Tables (May 2005), the Harvest, Renewal and Tending section for this Table was much more comprehensive: “Harvest: • harvesting is permitted within the AOC only when the ground is frozen and no rutting will occur; • harvesting is permitted pending field verification of the slope conditions; • harvesting is permitted pending filed verification that the Site Types are any of 5a, 5b, 6a, 7a, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13; • harvesting is permitted pending filed verification that there is no critical fish habitat in the inshore adjacent to the harvested area; and • snag trees will be concentrated in the riparian zone as potential instream cover for fish. Renewal: • renewal work is permitted except that no mechanical or aerial chemical site preparation is permitted. Tending: • tending work is allowed except that no aerial chemical tending is permitted” I do not support this AOC prescription as submitted in the Draft Plan. Again, this AOC prescription was not in the package that I approved in June 2005. If this prescription is included in the final Plan, it should be treated as an exception.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
668.
SB
E
669.
SB
E
670.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: NG FMP-17 Sup Doc 07: TC FMP-17
All
Page numbers Page numbers Harvest, Renewal and tending
Pagination is incorrect: pages are numbered: 1, 3, 2, 3
fixed
All
Pagination is incorrect: pages are numbered: 1, 3, 2, 3, 4
fixed
Broad wing
Change “aerial chemical site preparation…” to “No aerial chemical site preparation…” I’m assuming that this mistake was typographical. No aerial spraying of any kind can take place in the MMA during the timing restriction. Change “≥” to “≤” Change “The Area of Concern (AOC) shall be 30 metre radius from the nest
Changed as per discussions with Steve
671. 672.
SB SB
R.E. R
FMP-17 FMP-17
Broad winged Broad
Description Prescription
Changed as per discussions with Steve Changed as per discussions with Steve
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
64 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
winged
Line #
Alteration
tree and; a Modified Management Area (MMA), which shall comprise the balance of the AOC.” to: “The Area of Concern (AOC) shall be 150 metre radius, measured from the nest tree, consisting of: a nest tree reserve and; a Modified Management Area (MMA), which shall comprise the balance of the AOC.” NB: This prescription differs from that which appears in the package which I approved in June 2005. However, in subsequent discussion with Jeremy (July 2005), we agreed to modify the prescription, and this table adequately represents that agreement. the change I’ve required here is consistent with the prescription listed under Harvest, Renewal and Tending. Clarify: This prescription does not cover potential crossings of canoe routes. Is this missing, or was it left out intentionally? Change “MMA” to “AOC”. Since the AOC is entirely reserve, there are no areas of modified operations, therefore no MMA Prescription: Word it the same as the Sup Doc ... should not be limited to 150 m. Reserve: Forest operations will not be permitted if there is doubt over the ability to minimize ground disturbance. Under these circumstances, AOC will be a reserve. N/A is not correct. Ensure that prescription matches Renée Carrière note of November 2004. The source of this information is NRVIS ?? Are your CH marked on the NRVIS Maps. Part 1 a) Values - need to include (1st in importance) high potential cultural heritage area Part II should be documented under section C - No Direction in Existing Implementation Manual. Missing- tending operations are permitted- in the prescription. Renée Carrière advice note can be used as rationale for the proposed prescription and the reason no alternative are shown. Typo Implementation Manual: should be 1991 not 1971. as stated above the interpretation note is good rationale but not an implementation manual. Part D Fill in NA if there are no stands affected by tertiary roads or was this missed. Part III Explain why only one alternative for the Gulliver Lake Road was given. For both roads the selected road location section ( #6) should be filled in. The most important value should tie in with the AOC type. Is the valueaesthetics from the cottage lot? Access to cottage lot? Need to explain why only one alternative given, or show other alternatives. Why not show you considered the public comments for normal operations. Comment – This prescription differs from that which appears in the package which I approved in June 2005. However, in subsequent discussion with Jeremy (July 2005), we agreed to modify the prescription, and this table adequately represents that agreement.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
673. 674. 675.
SB SB MLM
C E R
FMP-17 FMP-17 FMP-17
Canoe route Canoe route CH
Tertiary roads Tertiary roads
Covers portage trails if marked
It is limited to 150m or less that is the max unless an actual cultural heritage area is found. This is stated Changed source. Fixed Fixed
676.
MLM
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07
CH
Fixed Missed Added text. There is no alternatives. Fixed Added text There were only two against many others. Changed as per discussions with Steve
677.
MLM
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 FMP-17
CL
678.
SB
C
Cooper’s hawk
Harvest, Renewal and tending
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
65 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Cooper’s hawk
Line #
Prescription
Alteration
Change “The Area of Concern (AOC) shall be 150 metre radius from the nest tree and; a Modified Management Area (MMA), which shall comprise the balance of the AOC.” to: “The Area of Concern (AOC) shall be 300 metre radius, measured from the nest tree, consisting of: a 150 metre reserve and; a Modified Management Area (MMA), which shall comprise the balance of the AOC.” NB: I missed this error (presumably a cut and paste error) in my review of the package that I approved in June 2005. However, the change I’ve required here is consistent with the prescription listed under Harvest, Renewal and Tending. “No construction, hauling or other forest operations permitted in MMA from March 1 through July 31, unless approved in advance by MNR.” This statement conflicts with the harvest prescription listed in Harvest, Renewal and Tending. Suggest it be removed. Change Renewal bullet to read: “renewal is not permitted in the MMA, except where a nest has been established after a renewal treatment has taken place. In this situation, subsequent renewal will take place after June 1st. Tree planters will be informed by the site foreman that they are planting in a sensitive area, and will be advised to keep noise and activity to a minimum.” Change “tertiary zone” to “MMA” (3 instances) NB: MMA was used in the package that I approved in June 2005. In May, Jeremy and I had agreed to use ‘MMA’ to describe areas of modified operations, in order to eliminate confusion over various ‘buffer’ terminology in the assorted habitat manuals. Comment - The harvest, renewal and tending prescription has been changed from the package that I approved in June 2005. However, I feel that the new wording is a more accurate interpretation of the guidelines. Timing restriction is missing. Change “…permitted in this MMA.” to “…permitted in this MMA between March 15th and August 31st” Change “tertiary zone” to “Modified Management Area (MMA)” NB: MMA was used in the package that I approved in June 2005. In May, Jeremy and I had agreed to use ‘MMA’ to describe areas of modified operations, in order to eliminate confusion over various ‘buffer’ terminology in the assorted habitat manuals. Change “tertiary zone” to “MMA”
Completed or explanation of alteration
Changed as per discussions with Steve
New Pg #
679.
FMP-17
680.
SB
C.E.
FMP-17
Cooper’s hawk
Tertiary Roads
Changed as per discussions with Steve
681.
SB
R
FMP-17
Eagle
Harvest renewal and tending
Changed as per discussions with Steve
682.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17
Eagle
Harvest, Renewal and tending
Changed as per discussions with Steve
683.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17
Eagle
684.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17
Eagle
685.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17
Eagle
Harvest, Renewal and tending Harvest, Renewal and tending Prescription
Changed as per discussions with Steve
Changed as per discussions with Steve
Changed as per discussions with Steve
686.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17
Eagle
Reserve
Changed as per discussions with Steve
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
66 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
NB: MMA was used in the package that I approved in June 2005. In May, Jeremy and I had agreed to use ‘MMA’ to describe areas of modified operations, in order to eliminate confusion over various ‘buffer’ terminology in the assorted habitat manuals. AOC identifier should be “FH”, not “WQ” NB: The AOC identifier was listed as FH-C, FH-W in the package that I approved in July 2005. The package that I approved in June 2005 included a harvest prescription that stated: “Selective harvest only within MMA. Details to be discussed.” There was no further discussion on this topic (a shortfall on the parts of both the Company and MNR). However, the fact still remains that the approved AOC package stated Selective harvest NOT “Normal harvest is permitted in the MMA outside of the timing restriction.”, which is what appears in the draft plan. At the very least, the harvest prescription should be similar to that for osprey: “Selective harvesting will consist of clearcutting in a non-contiguous harvest pattern removing approximately less than 50% of the MMA. The selective harvest method will assist in meeting the required number of snags and will be done during the preparation of the AWS.” Jeremy: change the selective in this comment to Modified.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
687.
SB
R
FMP-17
Fish habitat
AOC identifier
Changed as per discussions with Steve
688.
SB
R
FMP-17
Goshaw k
Harvest, Renewal and tending
Added text that we discussed
689.
SB
R
FMP-17
Goshaw k
Harvest, Renewal and tending
The package that I approved in June 2005 included the following statement: “No operations within the MMA from March 01 through July 31.” The FMP-17 table submitted with the draft plan contains the following statement: “Tree planting will be permitted in the MMA during optimal planting time.” The latter statement is in conflict with the prescription that I approved in June. Change “aerial chemical site preparation…” to “No aerial chemical site preparation…” I’m assuming that this mistake was typographical. No aerial spraying of any
Added text that we discussed
690.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17
Goshaw k
Harvest, Renewal and tending
Added text that we discussed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
67 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
kind can take place in the MMA during the timing restriction.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Added text that we discussed
New Pg #
691.
SB
R
FMP-17
Herons
Harvest renewal and tending
Add after ‘June 1st’: “Tree planters will be informed by the site foreman that they are planting in a sensitive area, and will be advised to keep noise and activity to a minimum.” Moose aquatic feeding areas need to be measured from standing timber (please see FMP training messages). The value is forest cover (primarily conifer) adjacent to the feeding area. 2m tall shrubs do not provide the cover necessary to meet the intent of the value. Tertiary Road Conditions. Ensure FMP-17 says the same thing as the Sup Doc. It is not an abbreviation of the supp doc. (examples. 3rd bullet add in pending review and approval by the MNR, seeding, abandonment after 5 years) Selection harvesting only can occur in the MMA, that maintains at least 70% crown closure (not 70% of existing crown closure). No aerial chemical site prep is permitted at any time in the AOC. Tree planting must occur outside of the timing restriction of any occupied nest. -Renewal – remove the word “no”. -Tertiary Roads-“No new roads or landings in MMA, unless approved..” Remove remainder. Under renewal, why have you stated this prescription: “renewal is not permitted except where a nest has been established after a renewal treatment has taken place”? Do you mean where site prep has been done, then an eagle builds a nest, and then you want to tree plant? If this is the case, the prescription can simply be: “Any renewal activities will not affect the remaining trees in the AOC, and will occur outside of the timing restriction.” -AOC Sup Doc and FMP-17 inconsistent in regard to harvesting operations. FMP 17 has no harvesting in the 400- 800 m MMA, Sup Doc has timing restrictions. -Road construction – FMP 17 prohibits from 200m to line of sight from March 15th to May 31st. Not consistent with NE AOC Sup Doc. -Omit “except where a nest has been established after a renewal treatment has taken place.” Where new values are found they will be protected accordingly. -Tertiary road text also inconsistent. Normal harvesting is not permitted in the MMA. Only harvesting that retains at least 70% crown closure (not 70% of existing crown closure) is permitted in the AOC. No other forestry operations are permitted in the MMA during the timing restriction. Aerial chemical site prep is not permitted at any time.
692.
GDL-41
R
FMP-17
MA
Agreed on 2 metre trees.
693.
MLM
R
FMP-17
MA
Removed sentence
694.
GDL-48
R
FMP-17
NC
Ok put 300m reserve
695.
VT
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 NC FMP-17
NC
ok
696.
GDL-45
R
NE
yes
697.
VT
R
FMP-17 Sup Doc 7 NE
NE
Changed as per discussions with Steve
698.
GDL-46
R
FMP-17
NG
ok
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
68 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
GDL-42
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
NH
Line #
Alteration
Since foot traffic has been shown to cause significant disturbance to nesting herons, no planting can occur in the Modified Management Area during the timing restriction, unless it is declared an exception and a monitoring program is put in place. Tree planting is not permitted during the timing restriction. Aerial chemical site prep is not permitted during the timing restriction, and cannot result in drift into the 30m nest reserve. Since foot traffic has been shown to cause significant disturbance to nesting ospreys, no planting can occur in the Modified Management Area during the timing restriction, unless it is declared an exception and a monitoring program is put in place. Tertiary roads are only to be constructed to access timber inside the AOC, not to access timber across the AOC. Change the “greater than” sign to a “less than” sign. Remove ravens from this prescription, as their nests are commonly larger than 75cm, and will confound the prescription. Why have you referenced a 30m AOC in the prescription section? No aerial chemical site prep or tree planting is permitted during the timing restriction of an active nest. Add after ‘June 1st’: “Tree planters will be informed by the site foreman that they are planting in a sensitive area, and will be advised to keep noise and activity to a minimum.” Change “area referred to as the outer buffer” to “MMA” NB: I missed this in my review of the package that I approved in June 2005. However, in May, Jeremy and I had agreed to use ‘MMA’ to describe areas of modified operations, in order to eliminate confusion over various ‘buffer’ terminology in the assorted habitat manuals. Clarify – what defines ‘lowland’ and ‘upland’ in this prescription? The package that I approved in June 2005 included the following statement: “No operations within the MMA from March 01 through July 31.” The FMP-17 table submitted with the draft plan contains the following statement: “Tree planting will be permitted in the MMA during optimal planting time.” The latter statement is in conflict with the prescription that I approved in June. The package that I approved in June 2005 included the following statement:
Completed or explanation of alteration
ok
New Pg #
699.
FMP-17
700.
GDL-47
R
FMP-17
NL
Ok fixed
701.
GDL-43
R
FMP-17
NO
Talke to greg about this and it is ok
702. 703.
GDL-44 GDL-49
R R
FMP-17 FMP-17
NO NS
Ok changed Ok changed
704.
SB
R
FMP-17
Osprey
Harvest renewal and tending
Ok changed
705.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17
Osprey
Harvest renewal and tending
Ok changed
706. 707.
SB SB
C R
FMP-17 FMP-17
Railroad Red tail
Prescription Harvest, Renewal and tending
wetness Ok changed
708.
SB
R
FMP-17
Red tail
Harvest, Renewal and
Ok changed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
69 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
tending
Alteration
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
“No operations within the MMA from March 01 through July 31.” The FMP-17 table submitted with the draft plan contains the following statement: “Tree planting will be permitted in the MMA during optimal planting time.” The latter statement is in conflict with the prescription that I approved in June. Change “aerial chemical site preparation…” to “No aerial chemical site preparation…” I’m assuming that this mistake was typographical. No aerial spraying of any kind can take place in the MMA during the timing restriction. Change “The Area of Concern (AOC) shall be 30 metre radius from the nest tree and; a Modified Management Area (MMA), which shall comprise the balance of the AOC.” to: “The Area of Concern (AOC) shall be 150 metre radius, measured from the nest tree, consisting of: a 30 metre reserve and; a Modified Management Area (MMA), which shall comprise the balance of the AOC.” NB: I missed this error (presumably a cut and paste error) in my review of the package that I approved in June 2005. However, the change I’ve required here is consistent with the prescription listed under Harvest, Renewal and Tending. Move - all slash, limbs and tops will be removed from this area. To the Harvest, Renewal and Tending section. Value needs to be entered, if it is NA there is no need for an AOC. Locations table missing. Typo Part II should be Part C and under potential effects… an area with little fuel adjacent to the railway not highway Location table (Table 1) is not filled in.
709.
SB
R.E.
FMP-17
Red tail
Harvest, Renewal and tending
Ok changed
710.
SB
R
FMP-17
Red tail
Prescription
Ok changed
711. 712.
MLM MLM
R R
FMP-17 FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 FMP-17 FMP-17 Sup Doc 07 FMP-17
RR RR
Stated already ok
713.
MLM
R
SN
fixed
714.
MLM
R
TC
715. 716.
GDL-40 MLM
R E
WQ WQ
717.
SB
R
WQ
Description
Value: Structural integrity of the cabin? Will Moose aquatics and fisheries/ water quality be protected by this AOC, or are they covered off by other AOCs Change the reference to warmwater to coolwater. Warmwater fish communities are carp, sunfish, largemouth bass, etc. We generally refer to fisheries as cool or cold in the Northeast. Warm is used to describe warm water fisheries such as bass. Part 1 the Description of the Value should include cool water This AOC prescription does not apply to all riparian areas. Change
Ok, yes
ok changed
Talked about this with steve
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
70 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
of values
Alteration
description to read “This AOC covers intermittent streams and riparian areas of those warmwater waterbodies and watercourses where the slope of the shoreline is no greater than 15%, and where it has been proven through field assessment that there are no areas of critical fish habitat.” NB: this prescription was not in the package that I approved in June 2005 In Jeremy’s original draft of the FMP-17 Tables (May 2005), the Harvest, Renewal and Tending section for this Table was much more comprehensive: “Harvest: • harvesting is permitted within the AOC only when the ground is frozen and no rutting will occur; • harvesting is permitted pending field verification of the slope conditions; • harvesting is permitted pending filed verification that the Site Types are any of 5a, 5b, 6a, 7a, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13; • harvesting is permitted pending filed verification that there is no critical fish habitat in the inshore adjacent to the harvested area; and • snag trees will be concentrated in the riparian zone as potential instream cover for fish. Renewal: • renewal work is permitted except that no mechanical or aerial chemical site preparation is permitted. Tending: • tending work is allowed except that no aerial chemical tending is permitted” I do not support this AOC prescription as submitted in the Draft Plan. Again, this AOC prescription was not in the package that I approved in June 2005.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
718.
SB
R
FMP-17
WQ
Harvest renewal and tending
Talked about this with steve
719.
SB
C.E.
FMP-18
1 of 2 and 2 of 2
Stage of Management column
Clarify – why is the “Stage of Management” column empty?
It is only used for the shelterwood management. fixed Used term 2 numbers since the delay is on it does not produce any number for the accumulating reserves.
720. 721.
DG DC
R R
FMP-19 FMP-19
Please change the harvest areas in order to keep SB1, PJ1, SF1, PO1 and BW1 from being over-allocated. How was the projected and forecast reserve column filled out. Numbers can not be reproduced. The numbers are significantly lower than the current FMP 19 Please discuss methodology as nothing is in text. I can provide proper formulas if it would be easier WHY IS SBOG LISTED AS A FOREST UNIT WHEN OTHER FMP TABLES DON’T? (IE. FMP-11, FMP-14, FMP-15, FMP-16, FMP-18, FMP-20) PLEASE
722.
JG
R
FMP-19
It is needed in some and where the value is not needed or 0 then it is not shown
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
71 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
REMOVE OR ADD TO OTHER TABLES.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
723.
DC
R
FMP-20
Please indicate in plan text exactly how stand volumes were calculated and what assumptions were made, average condition, netdowns ect. Currently stand volumes can not be reproduced given description and it appears no net down is shown for GS and Silv decisons Also if statement in text is correct why was average point of yeildcurve used not stand level for determining volumes. For eg. Volume effect of allocating average condition PJ1 SC1 sppcom PJ9PO1 vrs actual stand of PJ1 SC3 sppcomp PJ7PO3. This may show significant differences in realized volumes and show more realistic numbers in FMP tables FMPM A-94 “The method which was used to estimate the volume available from the forecast harvest area must be described in the plan text.” Please call if you have any questions
Explained it to dean at a sit down prior to RD presentation Added text on volume in the text
724.
JG
C
FMP-20
725. 726. 727. 728.
JG SP JG SB
E R R C.E.
FMP-20 FMP-20 FMP-20 FMP-20A 1 of 1 Stage of Management column
TRY AND SOLVE PROBLEM OF ROUNDING OF VALUES AND MISMATCHES BETWEEN TABLES IE. BETWEEN FMP-18 AND FMP-20 FORECAST HARVEST AREA (HA) FIELDS SHOW AND CARRY DECIMAL PLACES IN CONTRASTING WAYS. FMP-18 DOESN’T CARRY THE DECIMAL PLACES WHILE FMP-20 DOES RESULTING IN A TOTAL THAT IS OUT BY OUT BY MORE THAN 1 HA. HOW IMPORTANT IS ACCURACY BETWEEN TABLES? FOR THE FIELD HEADER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AVAILABLE HARVEST VOLUME AND … ADD “FORECAST HARVEST VOLUME (M3)” Heading incomplete “Difference between Available Harvest Volumes and” otherwise ok VALUES FOR AVAILABLE HARVEST VOLUME (M3) DON’T MATCH FMP-15 VALUES ARE ROUNDED OFF TO THE NEAREST 5 Clarify – why is the “Stage of Management” column empty?
One two or three ha is not important.
fixed repeat That was what was exported by FARM. 15 was done by hand It is only used for the shelterwood management. It is only used for the shelterwood management. Will try
729.
JG
R
730. 731.
MTY MTY
R R
FMP-22, FMP-9, FMP-20 & 20A, FMP18 & 18A, FMP-23 FMP-24
SOME STAGE OF MANAGEMENT FIELDS ARE POPULATED AS CCUT AND OTHERS ARE BLANK. Should BE CONSISTANT
Insure you Update this table as per email 22/09/2005 Use regional FMP-24 provided via email 28/09/2005
Ok fixed fixed
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
72 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB
Type
E
/Table #
Section
Pg #
1 of 1
Line #
Mill column
Alteration
“Kimberly-Clarke…” In Table 10 of the text (page 73), you state that Kimberly-Clarke has changed to Neenah Paper Company of Canada. I have a concern that the SB1 and MW2 FUs (and possibly others) will generally be regenerated by extensive methods, and that we will decrease the conifer (eg: spruce) component on the forest. If this is true, is this consistent with the objectives and strategies? If slash piling and burning is to be done, explain in what forest units it will be carried out - all? What is the expected size of the program per year over next 5 years include in FMP-25 FMP-23 you mention throughout the text and compliance plan that certain species have “ no market demand or very little market demand” if this is the case why have you not identified any unutilized volume in FMP-23. So available unutilized fiber can be identified for potential markets Under the SB1 column in the artificial reg. rows you have zero. The SFMM model indicates that you should be treating SB1 intensively 42.9 ha / yr this is 214.5 ha over the 5 yr term and 1756 ha / yr extensively. With both the models recommendations and the preliminary plot data from the area MNR surveys of NE-8, 11, 12 and 13 showing that these site are not regenerating to SB1 Extensive quality; I would think that this must be put into this table. You have put the 10-20% constraint in the Model therefore the model is putting intensive treatment on the SB1 FU and there is no planting in this FU in your FMP-25. These numbers should more closely reflect the recommendations of the PPMA “2nd_IC_BKRF_220305”, “PPMA_June_23_2005”. Remove reference to natural abandonment as it no longer is discussed within the manual If no abandonment is planned at FMP stage replace comment in column 9 from “as per criteria” to none Section A. New Roads the abandonment section is not filled out.
Completed or explanation of alteration
fixed
New Pg #
732.
FMP-24
733.
MK
R
FMP-25
I missed areas that we were treating intensively. They are added now.
734.
DC
R
FMP-25
Added to text and fmp-25
735.
DC
C
FMP-25
736.
MTY
R
FMP-25
Basically it is the unstable markets that make there be no market. If we are cutting and they want it…market if we are cutting and they don’t want it…no market. This was an error, added intensive area.
737.
MTY
R.E.C.
FMP-25
Ok they do like stated above numbers are now there
738.
DC
R
FMP-26
‘Natural’ is removed and ‘None’ is inserted
739.
CS
C
FMP-26
740.
CS
C
FMP-26
Section B. Existing Roads under the abandonment section the years are all listed as unknown the previous plan had several listed as 2006, 2011, and 2016 these should be brought forward or altered with rational. Ice creek road is missing from the section B under existing roads. Remove decimal points and trailing zeros in “Access Type” column Any roads scheduled for abandonment during the term (labelled ‘D’) need to have an abandonment date.
741. 742.
CB VT
R R
FMP-26 FMP-26
They are secondary road and at this time it is not going to be abandoned in this plan. Therefore not necessary. In the plan it explains that the company is doing an ownership project and inventory and before dates are assessed on road the owner of the road needs to be known. Added this road. ok none
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
73 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
KB MTY CB
Type
R R.E. R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
FMP-26 – Maintenance kilometers require an estimation. Ensure you update this table after altering the rest of the FMP tables.
Completed or explanation of alteration
ok ok added
New Pg #
743. 744. 745.
FMP-26 FMP-27 IFA results that have been addressed in FMP List of Exception 1 N/A
Under discussion of recommendations # 1 & #4 add “In September 2003 MNR implemented a protocol for obtaining (from forest stakeholders, interest groups and the general public), updating and tracking the collection of non-timber values for input to the ‘Natural Resources Values Information System’ (NRVIS) database.” Good description on clear cuts exceeding 260. In addition to the description given the text needs to include specific rationale for planned clear cuts >260 as listed in NDPEG pg 4-5 such as “moving towards a more natural frequency/disturbance size class” and where one or more of the bullet points listed on pg 4 applies. This needs to be done individually for each clearcut listed in the figure for which ever piece rationale is consistent with the planned condition. Please call me to discuss if any questions
746.
DC
R
ii
11.2 Figure11.4 And pg 148150
Ok, did for all cuts
747.
DC
R
List of Exception
ii
Cut # 2
Statement # 3 “peninsular fell short” It needs to be said what it fell short of and if ecological filter / Bio review has been done and determined to be ok. Or if projected is planned to be found over the term. What needs to be said is why the table 3 targets are not planned on being met. Eg emulating a hot burn on PJ sand flat, additional cover-to-cover left for moose ect. This needs to be updated for all cut rationale Cut #2 - Please remove last sentence as we are forecasting the entire block to be cut Clarify: “…the cutover tends to be divided in two distinct blocks when the new cut occurs will join these clearcuts.” Clarify: “…this area will be greater than 6 metres.” Is this meant to read ‘the average height in this area will be greater than 6 metres.”? “The rationale for a cutover of this size is that it works towards meeting the current targets for disturbance patches.” Repeated in two consecutive sentences – remove first instance. (cut and paste error) “The harvesting operations that contribute to this clearcut will occur during the 1991-1996 Plan.” Clarify: are the years correct? If so, should read “…clearcut occurred during” “There are three nearby marten core areas (#3)” Other two cores should be listed. “There are three nearby marten core areas (#9)” Other two cores should be listed.
Ok stated that and checked in all cut descriptions
748. 749. 750.
SB SB SB
C C E
List of Exception List of Exception List of Exception List of Exception
ii ii ii
Cutover #1 in table Cutover #2 in table Cutover #4 in table Cutover #10 in table
ok ok ok ok
751.
SB
C
iii
ok
752. 753.
SB SB
C C
List of Exception List of Exception
iii iii
Cutover #7 in table Cutover #8 in table
Ok Ok
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
74 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
ix
Line #
n/a
Alteration
The two tables that appear on page 159 of the text (which are labelled Tables 22 and 23 in the text, but which should actually be Tables 40 and 41) do not appear in the List of Tables. Table title incorrect
Completed or explanation of alteration
Added missing tables and relabelled
New Pg #
754.
List of tables List of tables
755.
SB
E
ix
756. 757. 758. 759. 760.
SB SB SB SB KB
E E E E R
List of tables List of tables List of tables List of tables Map 03 61546
ix ix ix ix 355
Table 17, 20, 21, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39 Table 19 Table 26 Table 3 Table 6 Polyid 24754
Corrected titles
Change “description” to “descriptions” Change “Ditital” to “Digital” “Pref. and used habitat for selected spp.” Do not use contractions or short forms. Change “manitouwadge" to “Manitouwadge” Planning Inventory has this poly listed as 96 ha, stand list indicates 0 Ha. Some area is missing within the stand list / map. This Poly also has 2 blocks indicated on the map 355 and 266. Block 266 not listed within stand list. Area within stand list indicates 0 ha. Poly shows up as reserve on map. Stand list indicates that the poly is both normal and modified operations. Missing from stand list. Map area does not match Planning Inventory value. No reserve colour indicated on map. Usually swamp is outlined in red if reserve is covered. Modified for Eagle nest is not identified on the map. Affects harvest. Modified for Eagle nest north of Moshkinabi Lake not identified on the map. Doesn’t affect harvest, but will affect renewal. Road Corridor through blocks 357 and 329 does not have Water Crossing indicated for stream just North of Poly 11127. Also, shouldn’t this corridor narrow here? NS AOC has Poppy South Rd Corridor going through it! Is this Right?
changed changed changed changed Corrected
761. 762. 763.
KB KB KB
R R R
Map 03 61546 Map 03 61546 Map 03 61546 Map 03 61546 Map 08 61545 Map 08 61545 Map 08 – 61545
355 Block 274 Block 313 Block 313
Polyid 24785 Polyid 24707 Polyid 23775
Corrected Corrected Left as was as discussed. (We discussed showing these on the maps but decided not to) There is no modified (Line of sight)
764.
SB
R
Polyid 24083
765.
MTY
R.E.C.
Corrected
766.
MTY
R
61545
767.
KB
R
Block 329, 351
Polyid 24382, 24587 Polyid 24458 Polyid 24382
768. 769.
KB KB
E R
Map 08 – 61545 Map 08 – 61545
Block 357 Block 357 /
No Block 329 or 351 within stand list, but indicated within the planning inventory. Some areas within block 329 are coded as contingency, therefore please code as such. Also corridor should go around the NS AOC value. No stand information given on map. The stand list has polyid 24382 listed under block 353, and 357, but exceeds the allocated area. It is listed however, on the map as block 353,
*Yes this is true, I remember discussing this one and leave it as it was but I don’t remember what the deal was. Corrected
Corrected Corrected (Part of block 329 is contingency and I wrote down to review the rest with a
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
75 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
353
Line #
Alteration
but the planning inventory has it listed as block 329. Modified harvest is not indicated in the stand list or in the planning inventory. Please correct. Lake A should b e changed to Perry Lake.
Completed or explanation of alteration
new matching set of reports) Corrected Adjusted maps so that they now show nests affecting RNT operations as well. (As for the nest mentioned here my comment indicates that this nest wasn’t in the original file that we’ve received from the MNR. This will have to be done at AWS stage. Corrected
New Pg #
770. 771.
KB SB
R R
Map 10 58544 Map 10 58544
Block 217
Polyid 4494
772.
KB
R
Map 12 60544
Block 321
Polyid 11503
773.
KB
R
Map 12 60544
General
It appears that Values from adjoining FMUs have not been considered during AOC and harvest planning. There is a heronry located in the Big Pic FMU (16 U 0583482 5440180), in the vicinity of Rudder Lake, close to the boundary with the Black River FMU. The AOC for this heronry affects harvest operations in Block 217 (I’m assuming that the big ‘217’ in the harvest areas is a Block ID – BM58544, stand numbers 4494, 663, 10588 and 914), as well as tending operations in numerous other stands in the vicinity. Remove the label Waw12 Lake. The reserves to the north of the allocation should be displayed against the allocation in that area. Planning Inventory shows no record of modified harvest. Area on map does not match area within planning inventory and stand list. Insular area at upper left hand corner of basemap which should be coded possibly as peninsular? Polyid 11258 is incorrectly coded as insular.
774.
Clarify KB/MTY/ Region
R
Map 13 61544 & 61545 & other maps eg. Map - 42 Map 20 57542 Map 20 57542 Map 20 57542 Map 20 57542 Map 22 59542 Map 22 59542 –
General Road Corridor
Why is there peninsular or Insular area within road corridors? Only tertiary roads are permitted through peninsular patches. Based on NDPEG training April 05, Regional Direction and the Latest NDPEG Q&A.
775.
KB
R
Block ?
Polyid 2035
776. 777. 778. 779. 780.
KB KB KB SB KB
R R R C R
Block 349 Block 349 Block 349 Block ~316 Block 316
General Polyid 12063 Polyid 3155 Polyid 12415 Polyid 7610, 8873
No Block number assigned to this poly, not contained within stand list. Map area does not match with planning inventory. CH and WQ also not contained within stand list. Map indicates and stand list indicate Block 349, while planning inventory states block 348. Modified area shows up in stand list, however, map displays the wrong coding. Block number shows up as 348 within the PI. Stand List area does not match map area. WQ AOC is not depicted on map (outline 0.1 ha) Unidentified Raptor nest not on map…affects renewal. Label problem. AOC identifiers and Ecosite coding too close together – eg. MANE-2, and MANE-3.
No Correction Needed (Maps are only showing Insular and peninsular affecting harvest operations. To correctly determine Insular and peninsular areas affected by harvest operations, identify the corresponding Disturbance pattern perimeter) This is not possible. You do roads planning well before residual planning and how are you supposed to move roads for residual. In the current corridors the residual is not affected greatly and the disturbance with the affected area with the road would still be above the minimum needed. No issue. Corrected
This is block 348. corrected Corrected Corrected Corrected Corrected
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
76 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB KB
Type
C R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Block ~316 Block 340 / 270
Line #
Polyid 12415 Polyid 7309
Alteration
Unidentified Raptor nest not on map…affects renewal. This polyid shows up in block 270 and 340 in the stand list. Please correct.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Corrected In theory this is correct. The underlying Planning Inventory polygon spans across two disturbance patterns (block numbers correspond with disturbance pattern ids) This polygon was physically split in two parts and each part become a member of a different disturbance based on the 200m separation rule Corrected Only one 150m zone is modified and coded as modified reserve on the harvest allocation layer, but the buffer itself as in the nest buffer layer shows as modified. Only nest tree is reserve. Corrected Corrected Ok added Corrected This was coded manually for peninsular area. *Again this is a similar situation to comment 822. Corrected Corrected Corrected
New Pg #
781. 782.
Map 2259542 Map 23 56542
783. 784.
SB SB
C C
Map 23 60542 Map 28 59541
Block 340 Block 341
Polyid 6919 Polyid 12179
Unidentified Raptor nest not on map…affects renewal. NS AOC – reserve on map should be Modified
785. 786. 787. 788. 789. 790. 791. 792. 793.
SB KB SB KB KB SB KB KB KB
R R C R R C R R R
Map 31 56540 Map 37 57539 Map 37 57539 Map 38 58539 Map 38 58539 Map 38 58539 Map 38 58539 Map 38 58539 Map 41 56538
-
No Block ID Block ? No Block ID Block 262 Block 312 Block 312 Block 312 General Block 334
Polyid 16309 Polyid 19601 Polyid 19389 Polyid 18232 Polyid 17777 Polyid 17777 Polyid 4148
Heronry Modified not on map…affects renewal. No associated Block Number on map. Missing from stand list. MMA not on map…affects renewal. No AOC designation on the upper portion of the modified harvest area. Map gives AOC designation as NS. Planning inventory identifies the AOC as NNC. Area on map and stand list should be 11 ha according to inventory. NS AOC – reserve on map should be Modified Map gives AOC designation as NS. Planning inventory identifies the AOC as NNC. Area on map and stand list should be 11 ha according to inventory. Band of peninsular area shown at the top of the ASO map. No label information given on stand.
794. 795. 796.
SB KB KB
C R R
Map 41 56538 Map 42 57538 Map ASO 8.1
No Block ID Block 347
Polyid 11095, 99984, 19590 Polyid 20360 Polyid 22195
Red Tail nest not on map…affects renewal. Entire stand area is coded on map as modified harvest. Please adjust to reflect the stand list. Rename culvert in legend to water crossing. Contingency does not have the same coding as legend portrays it. An increase in legend size would facilitate its legibility.
Corrected Corrected Corrected (Renamed to Crossing as per our discussion on January 31)
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
77 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
DC
Type
R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Describe what methodology was decided upon by PT and company to portray sensitive data on mapset. Eagle nests, CH ect.
Completed or explanation of alteration
Only reserves intersecting operations are shown on maps. Nesting labels are offcentred as not to indicate the true location of values. No centre points Corrected
New Pg #
797.
Maps
798.
KB
R
Maps ASO
Reserves, Peninsular and Insular areas missing from stand list. Some Modified areas are missing from either the planning inventory or the stand list even though it’s depicted on maps. Some polyids are listed within the stand list and the maps, but are missing from the planning inventory. There are some discrepancies as to the total stand area reflected on the maps compared to the stand list and the planning inventory. Some of these discrepancies are minor rounding errors, and some completely do not match. Increasing the size of the legend would facilitate its legibility. The word culvert is being used to depict water crossings on the ASO maps, suggest re-wording the legend to reflect that the symbol represents a watercrossing. Also RK has a different pattern than that indicated within the legend. Black River Dep Road is displayed on a lot of the maps for a road name. Contingency is not properly coded on maps as per legend. Please correct. Comment – ALL nest AOCs (both reserve and modified areas) should be illustrated on operations maps, not just those that affect harvest. These AOCs affect renewal, hauling, road layout, etc. Also, having them on the FMP maps will be beneficial during AWS review. Comment – stands that have been identified for operations all contain coding that includes the notation NE (e.g. NE-11, NE-6). I don’t know what this notation represents, but it may create confusion with the NE notation for Bald Eagle Nest AOCs. I suggest that one of the two be changed for clarity (Eagle Nests could become EN or BE) Maps do not reflect timing restrictions for nests, Outpost camps, etc. which are useful bits of information. The Ecosite type is easily confused with the AOC identifier NE. Please use ST typing or another appropriate identifier. AOC’s have their designations identified, but not their widths. Neatlines are cutoff and OBM numbers are missing. French translations either are missing or contain spelling errors. Please Correct. Slivers –There are slivers contained within the planning inventory. Example: ObjectID 16423, 25094, 25095, 25097, 25100, 25101, 25184, 2572, 25292, 26004, 20837, 21788, 13165, 25134, 25823, 25441, 12809, 11382, 25723, 25795, 11779, 12929, 13309, 648, 13226, 1014, 2551. Please correct (FIM pg63, FIM pg 90). “Notice Use of this road … to access Granit lake should read Granite
799.
SB
R.C.
Maps ASO
All
All
Corrected
800. 801.
KB KB
C C
Maps ASO Maps ASO
General General
Corrected Corrected
802.
KB
R
803.
KB
R
Maps ASO – 1: 100,000 Maps ASO – General
General
Corrected French came from MNR
Corrected – not showing small polygons and slivers on maps by default. (Areas to small to represent on maps)
804.
SP
E
maps
Ok for the ‘e’ but there is no dates.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
78 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Dates are missing on map
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
805.
SB
R
Road use manage map Marten Maps
All
All
806. 807. 808. 809.
SB MTY DG DG
R R.E.C. C C
Marten Maps NDPE Plan Cont Plan Cont
All
All
iv iv
Comment – since you are not shifting your marten cores over the sixty year period, it would be useful to illustrate the guideline and non-guideline suitable habitat within the cores, so that we can see how the quality of the cores changes over time. Please re-size and re-colour the marten core labels to make them more legible. You need a discussion in the FMP as to how static your Insular patches are. If these patches are moveable I want them only mover within the same FU. Under Plan Advisors the MNR Science Advisor is Gordon Kayahara Plan Reviewers Add M. Kilgour as another Health and Silviculture Specialist Add ML McKenna as another Forest Program Specialist Add G. Kayahara as the Science Advisor Please replace Carmen Dube with Mary Lynn McKenna and Brian Fox with Mac Kilgore and the MNR Science Advisor is Scott McPherson Please place spelling of Cedarwall with Cederwall LCC list is not current. Needs to be updated.
Alright
Attempted to Added text to plan changed added
810. 811. 812. 813. 814. 815. 816.
MLM DC VT MTY PG SB CS
E E R E R R R
Plan Cont Plan Cont Plan Cont Plan Cont Plan Cont. Plan Cont. Roads & Signs SEV Briefing SEV Briefing SEV Briefing SEV Briefing SEV Briefing
iv iv iv iv iv iv LCC members Whole pg
ok corrected List I was given Added Changed changed ok
Add R.P.F. to M. Young, D. Gagnon, B. Fox, and C. Dube Under Planning Team Members and Plan Reviewers, please change Paul Gamble’s Tile to MNR Resource Planner/Aboriginal Liaison Change “M. Demars; MNR” to “S. Bobrowicz (replaced M. Demars); MNR” The second sign on the Lorna lake road the one furthest to the south can be removed as it was never erected and will not be. Secondly it does not match up to the text and maps for the 92 fmp therefore it can be removed. “…based on both Beyond 2000 and Our Sustainable Future.” Drop italics on ‘and’ “There are no parks with official status on the forest” Pan Lake Fen Provincial Park is within the Black River Forest. Clarify ‘official status’ Please remind me to send you another updated copy to insert for Final Plan stage. There are a few corrections that need to made that I have identified. Also dates for the signatures will need to be changed. “…(as reflected in Beyond 2000 and updated in Our Sustainable Future)…” Drop italics for ‘Beyond 2000’ and ‘Our Sustainable Future’ (since the rest of this passage is in italics, use normal text for titles) Third paragraph details significant caribou work presumably done on the unit, yet caribou is not used a provincially featured species for the MU.
817. 818.
SB SB
E R.C.
xiii xiii
Intro. line 8 para 4, line 3
Dropped italics ok
819.
PG
C
xiiii
ok
820.
SB
E
xiv
Question #2
ok
821.
VT
C
xix
Changed as required
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
79 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
Section 2.2.2.4 states no habitat info is available for the unit. Need to clarify the discrepancy. Change “…abandon roads for biological reasons.” to “…abandon roads for ecological reasons.” Change “…stick nest surveys for eagle and osprey.” to “stick nest surveys for herons, osprey, bald eagles, and forest-nesting raptors.” Change “i.e.” to “e.g.”, twice in this paragraph References to OMA (Ontario Marten Analyst Model) should be replaced with OWHAM (Ontario Wildlife Habitat Analysis Models), and spell out full guideline names SEV- “Forest Management Guidelines for the Conservation of Woodland Caribou” add in: A Landscape Approach. Was this used? – Page 43 states they do not have a strategy for Woodland Caribou. Delete is not used “…following the Class Environmental Assessment…” The word ‘assessment’ is half italics, half regular text. The word should be all italics. “Through the implementation of this plan, which is founded on the achievement of a series of long-term diversity, socio-economic, wildlife habitat and silvicultural objectives.” This sentence (fragment) doesn’t make any sense. Please clarify.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
822.
SB
R
SEV Briefing
xix
Para 1, Para 3
Changed abandon to decommission and biological to ecological Changed as required changed ok
823. 824.
SB DC/SB
E C
SEV Briefing SEV Briefing SEV Briefing SEV Briefing SEV Briefing
xv xv & xvi
Para 8
825.
MLM
C
xvi
The plan was too far along
826.
SB
E
xvii
Para 5
corrected
827.
SB
C
xviii
Para 3
Reworded: The implementation of this plan is founded on the achievement of a series of long-term forest diversity, socio-economic, wildlife habitat and silvicultural objectives.
added
828.
SB
E
SEV Briefing SFMM
xxi
Signature block for Paul Gamble
Add “Ministry of Natural Resources” under “Wawa District”
829.
DG
C
830.
DG
R
SFMM
831.
DG / DC
R
SFMM
On the page for Growing Stock Volumes Left Unharvested there is an error for the accumulation of birch on the PO1 Basic harvest. It currently shows as 0.24 instead of 0.024. The Growing Stock Timber Volume limits are currently set at 10. This value is the lowest point in time and could be raised to 11 with no apparent affects to the model results. Please describe in the plan text why this constraint was required and why it was set at 10 vs. some other value. Please describe in the plan text why the modeling best practice of a maximum 10% decrease volume flow constraint was not utilized for the Aspen volume. Currently the model shows a decrease in Aspen volume at T7 that is greater than a 10% drop from T6.
Not changing
You told me to set this limit and I did not question at the time
832.
DG / DC
R
SFMM
Please add text to the plan that describes the reasons for the harvest area stability limits, there variations as a percent and the variation between forest units. Some points to note are; • SP1 – T2 area is very low and T5 has no area
It is rationalized that other species will accommodate the drop in the future and the regional analysist at the time had no problem with the slight drop since everything is evenflow, the biggest thing is an ageclass gap The rational is to have as close to possible even flow wood supply. I stat that this is the best combination of summer winter wood etc. and the mw2 is talked about
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
80 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
PO1 – T7 is 11 ha/yr vs. T1 is 164 ha/yr BW1 – shows no area past T10 MW2 – 10% maximum decrease is very constraining and should be rationalized compared to the openness of other FUs. Please add text to the plan that indicates why Ce and La volume targets were not added to the model. There are commitments that show up in FMP24 yet no constraints in the model. I believe that you need to be planting more than 42.9 ha/yr of the SB1 FU! Some of your comparison data does not look as though you have used the alternatives contained within your Case File “2nd_IC_BKRF_220305”. The list of Implementation Manuals should be narrowed down to “ a list of the implementation manuals which were used in the preparation of the plan” (eg. Algonquin Forest Authority Act) Add Federal Fisheries Act and Federal Species at Risk Act Italicize “Selected Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory for use in Forest Management Planning” Comment – It is an unfortunate reality of the forest management planning process that values update surveys (i.e. Stick nests) cannot reasonably be planned and conducted until after the preliminary harvest allocations have been made available. Regardless, this paragraph states that “where possible, new information on values will be incorporated into the final plan.” This statement sounds like it was written during plan preparation. Now that the plan has been written, a more definitive statement should be made – either the information was used in the plan, or not. Clarify – Why haven’t the Values maps been updated since September 2004? Many new Values have seen added in the past year. “…were the worst…” Clarify – what do you mean by ‘the worst’? The worst when? Where? For whom? This statement is unclear. “…previous Forest Management Plan (1996-2001)…” Clarify – the previous Forest Management Plan was 2001-2006. Are the dates here correct? Recommendation #10 were not addressed in this plan and additional text is required in the body of the plan explaining why this is. For recommendation #10, since the road was not shown in this FMP it demonstrates that the road is not required within the next 20 years and therefore the area on the other side of the creek could have been deferred from the model for at least 20 years. • • •
Completed or explanation of alteration
having such a mixed old condition that it should be constrainted to the extent that cost does not exceed revenue or the forest unit will not be cut. The volume was so little and in every term the commitments are met. Not necessary for target. Thanks. ok This is the default list and I do not want to remove any manual. added italicized Text added to state Forest Management Plan
New Pg #
833.
DG
R.C.
SFMM
834. 835. 836.
MTY MTY MLM
R.C. E.C. R
SFMM SFMM Sup doc 01 Sup Doc 01 Sup Doc 02 Sup Doc 02
SB1 FU Text & Tables
837. 838. 839.
SB SB SB
R E C
1 2 2
Legislation Para 2, line 6 Para 3
840. 841.
SB SB
R.C. C
Sup Doc 02 Sup Doc 04
2 1
Para 5 10
Changed to July 2005 The worst effects…for all of man kind
842.
SB
R.C.
Sup Doc 04
1
3
The previous is the 1996-2001 and the current is the 2001-2006
843.
DG/DC
R
Sup doc 05
# 7 was to be done as so as possible. The IFA did not state that it had to be done for next plan or planning inventory. There are over ten years of bypass. #10 GWTL has a road corridor and it is slated as a secondary and not to be built this plan, therefore does not have to be in plan.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
81 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB SB SB
Type
E E C
/Table #
Section
Pg #
1 1 1
Line #
Para 3, line 6 Para 3, line 8 Para 4
Alteration
Italicize “Selected Wildlife and Habitat Features: Inventory for use in Forest Management Planning” Italicize “Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol ” Comment – It is an unfortunate reality of the forest management planning process that values update surveys (i.e. Stick nests) cannot reasonably be planned and conducted until after the preliminary harvest allocations have been made available. Regardless, this paragraph states that “where possible, new information on values will be incorporated into the final plan.” This statement sounds like it was written during plan preparation. Now that the plan has been written, a more definitive statement should be made – either the information was used in the plan, or not. The road use strategy for the existing Sweed lake road is missing. You have referred to attached maps in Elk and Gulliver of your Roads Docs and there is not a map…please include maps in this section and do so for the remainder of the Roads Docs. (2.4.5) Could not find Gulliver Lake Road corridor on map Eligibility to harvest 20 year Entire section speaks to the Ice Lake road, maps show corridors for Poppy, Cache, Elk, and Gulliver Lakes thus text should speak to balance of roads. Environmental analysis, “large loaded hill” unsure what this is Refers to attached maps no - maps are attached Environmental analysis, “large loaded hill” unsure what this is Elk Lake should be capitalized 2nd paragraph refers to an attached map, no map is attached Section # 2 “As well as other … in future plans.” Not a sentence 3rd paragraph line 6 twist road should be Twist Road 4th paragraph “The use management strategy … values in this, or a previous Plan, … remove excess comma Picle Lake should read Pickle
Completed or explanation of alteration
italicized italicized Changed text
New Pg #
844. 845. 846.
Sup Doc 05 Sup Doc 05 Sup Doc 05
847. 848.
CS MTY
C R
Sup doc 06 Sup Doc 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 06 Sup 07 Sup 10 doc doc doc doc doc doc doc doc doc doc doc Doc doc 1 1 1 2 2 2 All All Alter #2 Existing road use control Section 4C 3rd parag Elk Lk Rd Poppy South
There is no strategy for the Swede only the Lorna Lake Road. Maps are included now
849. 850. 851. 852. 853. 854. 855. 856. 857. 858. 859. 860. 861.
SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP MLM MLM
R R E R E E R E E E E R R
It is there south end of forest What balance. These are the only roads being built or primary for the future. Statement used when the haul truck is full of trees and has to climb a hill Maps are there Statement used when the haul truck is full of trees and has to climb a hill Ok Map is added Reworded sentence corrected corrected corrected ok It is there, just late
Changes required in the AOC Supp. Doc. must also be reflected in FMP-17 where appropriate. LCC statement is missing; it should be available for public review.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
82 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB PG/MTY/ SB/Reg.
Type
R.E. E E E E E C E R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Line #
Item 8 Item L Item M Item R Item S Para 1, line 11 Para 1, line 6 Para 1, line 6-7
Alteration
Confirm the correct spelling of “Dr. Degoe” – is it ‘Degoe’ (as in item 8) or ‘Deyoe’ (as in item O) Change “1st Open House” to “first information centre” Change “1st Open Houses” to “first information centres” Change “Open House” to “information centre” Change “Open Houses” to “information centres” Italicize “The Class Environmental Assessment for Forest Management on Crown Lands” “During the 1991-1996 and 1996-2001…” What about the 2001-2006 Plan? Change “…Plans the Corporation…” to “…Plans, PRDC…” Please Update the Terms of Reference to reflect newer members and new Issue Resolution and Request for Individual Environmental Assessment requirements from the new FMPM 2004. Also, You need to update the MNR Area Forester section to state that Michael T. Young is the Coordinator of the Required Alterations. This does not need to be signed by the DM and RD, but should be updated through appending information to the old ToR. Page Numbering Errors. The issue begins at pg 4 which should be pg 4 Missing Sections as per FMPM1996 i.e. 2.2.2. Forest Description, 2.3.3. Management Alternatives, These Sections may be in the Contents but not in the text or in the text but not in the Contents. Should be Northeast not Northeastern Region (change throughout the text) Heron nest missing from island in Dotted Lake. The nest does appear on the operations maps, and it doesn’t affect any operations. The correct title is “Forest Management Guide for Natural Disturbance Pattern Emulation” (Page 97 line 42 also ~17 more times) Please change all text that says ‘T&C 34/77’ to just T&C#34. Change “m3/yr” to m3/yr” (fix superscript problem on ‘yr’) Change “non-spatial” to “aspatial” throughout FMP. Example areas in regards to this comment are: Page’s: 24, 36, 99, 109, 111, 113, and 137. Change font to match the rest of the document Table of Contents – 2.2.2.2 Historic Forest Condition is located on page 12
Completed or explanation of alteration
Deyoe CHANGED CHANGED CHANGED CHANGED italicized Not finished yet, If you read farther down the page it talks about the 2001-2006 FMP changed NO new member update
New Pg #
862. 863. 864. 865. 866. 867. 868. 869. 870.
Sup Doc 10 Sup Doc 10 Sup Doc 10 Sup Doc 10 Sup Doc 10 Sup Doc 11 Sup Doc 11 Sup Doc 11 App 04
871. 872.
MTY MTY
E R.E.C.
Tbl. Cont. Tbl. Cont.
All All
All All
ok ok
873. 874. 875. 876. 877. 878.
MLM SB MLM PG SB SB/MTY
E C.E. R E E E
Title Page Values Map 4.1 Whole Plan Whole Plan Whole Plan Whole Plan Whole Plan Whole
ok ok ok ok ok ok
All All All All
All All All All
879. 880.
SB KB
E E
All All
All All
ok ok
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
83 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
Type
/Table #
Section
Pg #
Line #
Alteration
as opposed to page 11 as indicated within the TC. TC – Supp. Doc. - #3, 8, 9, and 10 – Title in document does not match what’s listed in TC. TC – List of Tables – Table 2 – There are two titles for Table 2 within the document. The first is what is listed in App. II and also “List of all planned Forest Disturbances (Including Wildfire and Clearcuts). TC – List of Tables – Table 3 – Add the word wildlife in your title to match the table’s title. TC – List of Tables – Table 7- add to title “of varying sizes” TC – List of Tables – Table 26 – is not formatted as a table in text TC – List of Tables – Table 30 – wrong page number is sourced, Table 30 is located on page 131. TC – List of Tables – Table 37 – is entitled Table 19 in text. TC – List of Tables – Table 39 – is entitled Table 21 in text. TC – List of Figures – Figure 1 – indicated Map 2, instead of figure 1. TC – List of Figures – Figure 5 – map missing the word type in title. TC – List of Figures – Figure 9 – completely missing from text. TC – List of Figures – Figure 12 – wrong map is shown; the 40-60 shows up in stead. TC – List of Figures – Figure 15 – Title of figure is missing in text, and the figure itself is missing. TC – List of Figures – Figure 16- Text indicates Figure 20.
Completed or explanation of alteration
New Pg #
Plan
881.
MTY/PG/ SB
R
Whole Plan
All
All
882.
MTY/KB/ SB
R.C.
Whole Plan
All
All
883.
SB
R.E.
Whole Plan
All
All
Ensure that the DLUGs are now referred to as Crown Land Use Policy Atlas. The Terrace Bay District Land Use Guidelines, as a document, are no longer a valid reference. We have been directed to refer to the Crown Land Use Atlas. This passage should read: “…Crown Land Use Atlas (incorporating the former Terrace Bay District Land Use Guidelines)…” eg. Sections 2.2.2.4, 2.3.2.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.8, 2.4.5, & sup doc 1 eg. Pg’s: 45, 57, 66, 74, 142, 164, & 2 respectively eg. Line: 41, para 5 line 2, 26, 2, 6 – 7, 42, & legislation respectively Ensure that all company names are accurate and up to date in text and tables. e.g. 686860 LTD should be 686860 Ontario Limited in section 2.4.4.1. pg 157 line 8 but, there is many more incidences of this type of error such as Midway Lumber and Kimberly-Clark (changed to Neenah Paper Company of Canada). Ensure that all pages are numbered and numbered correctly throughout Text, Tables and Sup. Doc. Ensure that all pages of the text have line numbers. Example areas in regards to this comment are: Sections: 2.2.2.1, 2.2.2.2, 2.3.2.1, and 2.3.4 FMP-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, and 26 Sup. Doc. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11.
ok
ok
ok
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
84 of 85
List of Alterations for the Draft 2006 Black River Forest
Source: MTY = Michael Young (Area Forester), SB/VT = Steve Bobrowicz/Virginia Thompson (Area Biologist (acting)), KB = Karen Burke (Acting Area Technician), CS = Craig Schut (Senior Forest Technician), JG = Jennifer Good (Data Technician), PG = Paul Gamble (Resource Planner), SP = Sheldon Plummer (Resource Technician), BF = Brian Fox; DG = Denis Gagnon; GDL = Greg Lucking; KC = Kirsten Corrigal; MA = Mark Austin; CB = Colin Blakemore; SO = Steve Osawa; MLM = Mary Lynn McKenna (A/Forest Program Specialist); GK = Gordon Kayahara (science Advisor); MK = Mac Kilgour (A/Health & Silviculture Specialist) Type: R=required; E=editorial; C=comment or clarification needed Alteration: describe the required alteration with enough detail to give plan author direction to make the change Completed: indicate how the alteration has been addressed in the final plan New pg #: enter the page # from the final plan Com
#
Source
SB MTY
Type
E R
/Table #
Section
Pg #
All 59
Line #
Page headers
Alteration
Page header reads “2006-2011” in some sections, “2006-2026” in others, and “20062-2011” in others. Change all page headers to read “2006-2026” Add text in this section as to the issue around the Wabikoba Lk. Road issue that was brought to the attention of the planning team during public inspection period and how it was dealt with and the final agreement.
Completed or explanation of alteration
No they should be 2006-2011. No this was not an issue it was a concern and an inquiry. They were miss lead and thought that the company could stop the hunting around the cottages. For the road it is a Company road and all we did was to ensure happiness had a meeting and agreed to maintenance that is already in plan. Ok added text in Section 2.3.3.1
New Pg #
884. 885.
Whole Plan Issues
886.
MTY
R
Marten
Add text to the plan discussing how the marten SQL error was handled and the Region/District acceptance of the Black River Suitable habitat as per the 2001 FMP.
Black River Forest Draft FMP 2006-2026 FMP
Version Created 3/20/2006
85 of 85