TEMPLATE IN WORD - DOC

Document Sample
TEMPLATE IN WORD - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #       Alteration                                                                              Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
1.          BF           R        FMP-10       165-326                   The following general table format changes must be made to all SGR‟s, as per
                                                                         previous direction at FMP SGR training module and comments provided Feb,
                                                                         10th, 2004:

                                                                    a)     Current Forest Conditions – Forest Unit – include average species
                                                                          composition, average stocking and site class. Site type – show the % of each
                                                                          site type found in each FU.
                                                                    b)    Future Forest – Forest Unit, Stand Characteristics – include average species
                                                                          composition, average stocking and site class. Also state actual planned
                                                                          rotation age. Development Info – need to show the % going to each FFU and
                                                                          intensity for eg:

                                                                         MW2 70% Int
                                                                         PO1 20% Ext
                                                                         Bw1 10% Ext

                                                                    a)     Regeneration Standards:
                                                                          1) Need to show in the following format ie list target and acceptable species
                                                                         and the minimum and target stems per ha of target and acceptable species, for
                                                                         eg.

                                                                         Target Sp Accept Sp

                                                                         Minimum stems/ha                1250                  1500
                                                                         Target   stems /ha                         1500                   2000

                                                                         Target sp = Sb, Sw, Pj
                                                                         Accept Sp = Sb, Sw, Pj, Bf, Po, Bw, Ce, La

                                                                         Regen Stds cont‟d –
                                                                         2) Good to leave in the minimum species composition criteria already shown.
                                                                         Some of the % and species should be adjusted to match forest unit min SQL
                                                                         criteria.


                                                                         3) Heights should be included for all target and acceptable species.

                                                                         BW1 Extensives – harvest method should use seed tree method to renew Bw
                                                                         leaving 7-12 seed trees/ha to promote seed origin single stems.
2.          BF           R          2331         129           19        A white and red pine management strategy should be developed and included
                                                                         in the Sup Doc and a summary included here. See sample Pw Strategy
                                                                         previously supplied. As a minimum, the following items need to be addressed:
                                                                         a) a summary table showing the area by 10% Pw/Pr species composition
                                                                         classes found in each forest unit.
                                                                         b) An overview map showing the distribution of Pw/Pr by 10% classes in all
Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                   1 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        FU‟s across the Mgt Unit.
                                                                        c) Discussion of Pw regeneration targets and which FU‟s will be focused on to
                                                                        meet targets.
                                                                        d) Discussion of seed collection & mgt practices.
                                                                        e) Detailed description of how Pw that forms a minor component of non-pine
                                                                        FU's will be managed including
                                                                        a discussion of tree marking practices such as range of residual PwPr to be left
                                                                        when patches of PwPr with BA >12m2; 4m2-12m2/ha, as well as clear cut with
                                                                        standards situation with < 4m2/ha BA., etc.
3.          BF           R       2.3.3.2.1       139                    Forest Unit Descriptions – clarification of the species composition criteria for
                                  FMP-8                                 each forest unit is required. The information in Table FMP 8 and the text is not
                                                                        clear on this, which is needed to determine if the species composition
                                                                        requirements provided in the SGR Regen Stds is correct.
4.          BF           R        2.4.2.1        438           16       Clarify if poplar decline areas were given a priority for allocation.
5.          BF           R        2.4.4.2        557                    Clarify if the area forecast for mechanical slash piling and slash pile burning is
                                  FMP-25         558                    net or gross area – what exactly do these areas represent? Are the areas
                                                                        double counted or are they separate treatment areas?
6.          BF           R                       573           25       Include discussions of exceptions monitoring program and monitoring methods
                                                                        to be used for commercial thinning.
7.          BR           R         Forest                               Please update the Forest Management Plan Contributors page with all proper
                                  Manage                                titles, reviewers etc.
                                   ment
                                    Plan
                                 Contribut
                                    ors
8.          BR           R        FMP-17                                Please include the following lakes as RBT values within table FMP-17: Clay &
                                                                        Nonigose, Brunswick, Puskuta, Kapuskasing, Melrose/Moore.
9.          BR           R        FMP-14                                Table FMP-14 is saying that total harvest areas are in the 900,000 ha range.
                                                                        Please update table to reflect actual harvest areas, expenditures etc.
10.         BR           R         Supp.                                TL 02 – 4 cold water crossings are found in AOC Doc. but not in Roads Supp
                                   Doc.                                 Doc.
                                 Section 8                              FMP-26 indicates 10.7 km vs. 13.3 km in Supp Doc. Please update accordingly.
11.         BR           R         Supp.                                Please provide a comprehensive AOC prescription for the tourism values on
                                   Doc.                                 Clay and Nonigose Lakes.
                                 Section 9
12.         BR           R         Supp.                                There is an RBT AOC identified on the operational maps for Kapuskasing Lake
                                   Doc.                                 but no other reference of prescription in the Supp. Doc. Please provide an AOC
                                 Section 9                              prescription for this value.
13.         BR           R         Supp.                                Nova Road 1 – a few inconsistencies were found in the documentation for this
                                   Doc.                                 road:
                                  Section                                    -     There is no AOC prescription for the RBT values associated with this
                                    8, 9                                           road
                                                                             -     FMP-26 indicates 9.6 km vs. 7.5 km in Supp Doc.
                                                                             -     Roads Supp. Doc. does not acknowledge the AFA or RBT values
Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                   2 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                             -      Roads Supp. Doc does not include access control as indicated in
                                                                                    FMP-26
14.         BR           R         Supp.                                Ossin Road – between the map, AOC Supp Doc and Roads Supp Doc it is not
                                   Doc.                                 clear if there are 7 or 8 water crossings on this road – please clarify
                                  Section
                                    8, 9
15.         BR           R         Supp.                                Kukatush Road - – between the map, AOC Supp Doc and Roads Supp Doc it is
                                   Doc.                                 not clear if there are 7 or 8 water crossings on this road – please clarify
                                  Section                               There is no mention of the Groundhog River Park in the Roads Supp. Doc.
                                    8, 9
16.         BR           R         Supp.                                Hayward Access – there is no AOC prescription for Brunswick and Puskuta
                                   Doc.                                 lakes
                                  Section                               Please update Roads Supp Doc to reflect final prescription for this road.
                                    8, 9
17.         BR           R        Fig. 14      372-379                  It is unclear why only some of the wildlife species graphs are included here and
                                                                        why they do not display the Null Run. I assume that we need to update these
                                                                        to support the information reported in FMP-12 and FMP-13.
18.         BR           R        2.4.4.1      555-556                  Please include minutes to these two wood supply meetings in the Appendix and
                                                                        reference in the text.
19.         BR           R          2.1           2            28       ToR is not in Supp Doc. Please update and if desired, include ToR in Supp Doc.
20.         BR           R        2.2.2.3         14           12       This assumes that Cultural Heritage will be added after approval. Please update
                                                                        to reflect how the planning team will address cultural heritage.
21.         BR           R        2.2.2.4         86           50       Please clarify, Appendix 15 does not provide detail on Remote Tourism.
22.         BR           R        2.3.3.2        139           2        Please expand this section.
23.         BR           R       2.3.3.2.2       158           33       Please clarify what „Pest Management Section‟ is.
24.         BR           R        FMP-10         164                    8 SGRs for PO1 are missing as per table 10a. Please update to include these
                                                                        SGRs: All PO1 SGRs with Tending code = 2.
25.         BR           R        2.3.4.1        333           45       Please provide more clarification/explanation on how we approached habitat
                                                                        targets and why some are 80% and some 70%. Also applies to Page 412 Line
                                                                        24.
26.         BR           R        2.3.4.1        334           26       Please clarify whether „budgets‟ or „stumpage‟ was intended in modeling
                                                                        silviculture expenditures. The plan text and sfmm model conflict here. Please
                                                                        adjust modeling or text to reflect what was intended. Also applies to Page 411
                                                                        Line 15.
27.         BR           R          Fig.         393           9        Please Clarify the reference to Figures A-6 and A-7. Figure A-7 is found on
                                  A6/A7                                 page 392 and Figure A-6 is found on page 486.
28.         BR           R        2.4.4.2        440           17       Please provide further clarification on contingency area. There are several
                                                                        traditional operating areas on the Gordon Cosens Forest and when in need of
                                                                        contingency area, it has been very difficult to match required forest types and
                                                                        operating areas to existing contingency. Given the experiences during the
                                                                        implementation of the 2000-2020 fmp, I suggest that it be demonstrated here
                                                                        that the proposed contingency area is planned out and flexible enough to meet
                                                                        industry needs when required. Also applies to Page 541 Line 31.
29.         BR           R        2.4.3.2        442           32       Please expand further on slash pile burning. Considerable progress has been
Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                   3 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        made in response to an audit recommendation. This should be linked to what is
                                                                        proposed in this fmp.

                                                                        If slash pile burning “may be carried out”, further clarification is needed if it is
                                                                        or is not carried out and why or why not carried out.
30.         BR           R        2.4.4.1        556           7        Hwd reductions will also be done pro rata.
31.         BR           R         2.4.6         569           42       Please update forest renewal rates to the current rates. Also applies to table
                                                                        FMP-27.
32.        DAK           R        FMP-26       562-566                  - Each road must have a unique road name… - Example CSR#9
33.        DAK           R        FMP-26       562-566                        -     If not all the road is been listed, insure that the section that is not is
                                                                                    clearly defined on operations map,

                                                                        -   Example, the Neely Road is much longer that 5.5 kilometers,
34.        DAK           R         FMP-26      562-566                  -   Some roads to be abandoned have a year listed, others do not,
                                                                        -   This should be clarified,
                                                                        -   All roads that are to be abandoned should be clearly mapped,

                                                                        - Access is a major concern with the Public,
                                                                        - If the abandonment of a road can be done at an earlier stage, them the
                                                                        possibility of the road being maintained by a interested 3rd party may occur
                                                                        more efficiently,
35.        DAK           R        FMP-26       562-566                  - Term „criteria‟ see #2 above…
36.        DAK           R         Sect.7         4                     Section 2.1.5(b) Trespass
                                                                        - remove reference and table from the Compliance Plan and,
                                                                        - if used in FMP text it must indicate that the decision key is not to be used by
                                                                        OMNR Inspectors to determine compliance therefore in reference text clarify
                                                                        that the key is for industry inspectors and industry field staff only…

                                                                        - Following direction from Enforcement Branch all keys were removed from the
                                                                        AWS Compliance Plan two (2) years ago and the new FMP should reflect the
                                                                        same…
                                                                        - Keys could be used in other Plan text if both the intended usage and user
                                                                        group was clear in that it is for industry personal field use only and would not
                                                                        reflect, in any way, a new standard…

37.        DAK           R         Sect.7          5                    Figure 2: Decision Key for Trespass Reporting
                                                                             -    remove reference from Compliance Plan as per Comment #1 above…

                                                                        - There is no “Documented” in FOIP therefore change the two sections “Report
                                                                        as: DOCUMENTED WITH AN EXPLANATION” TO “Report as In Compliance with
                                                                        Comments” if to be used in the FMP text…
38.        DAK           R         Sect.7          6                    Section 2.1.5.(c) Water Crossings
                                                                        - remove reference and table from the Compliance Plan and,
                                                                        - if used in FMP text it must indicate that the decision key is not to be used by

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                   4 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        OMNR Inspectors to determine compliance therefore in reference text clarify
                                                                        that the key is for industry inspectors and industry field staff…

                                                                        - Following direction from Enforcement Branch all keys were removed from the
                                                                        AWS Compliance Plan two (2) years ago and the new FMP should reflect the
                                                                        same…
                                                                        - Keys could be used in other Plan text if both the intended usage and user
                                                                        group was clear in that it is for industry personal field use only and would not
                                                                        reflect, in any way, a new standard…
39.        DAK           R         Sect. 7         6                    Section 2.1.5.(d) Interpretation of Legislation, Policies and Procedures
                                                                              -     Reference to training, training materials and tools and using the site
                                                                                    disturbance Guidelines is good but the rest of the sentence is
                                                                                    unclear?!?

                                                                        - An inspector can monitor an operation or program to insure that it follows
                                                                        legislation and not whether legislation follows the need of the operations?!?
40.        DAK           R         Sect. 7         6                    Section 2.1.5.(d) Interpretation of Legislation, Policies and Procedures
                                                                              -    Reference to the “Decision Key for Herbicide Over-spray Reporting” is
                                                                                   another key to be removed the Compliance Plan and FMP…

                                                                        - Spoke with John Negusanti, MOEE Pesticide Officer and his office has never
                                                                        endorsed this table and insists that it be removed from FMP…

41.        DAK           R       Sect. 7           7                    Figure 3: Hearst District Field Identification Key
                                                                        - remove reference from Compliance Plan as per Comment #3 above…
                                                                        - if used in FMP text it must indicate that the decision key is not to be used by
                                                                        OMNR Inspectors to determine compliance therefore in reference text clarify
                                                                        that the key is for industry inspectors and industry field staff only…

                                                                        Following direction from Enforcement Branch all keys were removed from the
                                                                        AWS Compliance Plan two (2) years ago and the new FMP should reflect the
                                                                        same…
                                                                        - Keys could be used in other Plan text if both the intended usage and user
                                                                        group was clear in that it is for industry personal field use only and would not
                                                                        reflect, in any way, a new standard…
42.        DAK           R         Sect. 7         8                    Figure 4 – Decision Key for Herbicide Over-spray Reporting – Crown Forests of
                                                                        Ontario
                                                                              -     remove from Compliance Plan and FMP Text…

                                                                        - see # 6 above…

43.        DAK           R        2.4.5.1        560       14 to 17     - Define “no maintenance” and recognize exceptions to public and
                                                                        environmental safety...


Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                   5 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        - There maybe a need for ad-hoc repairs or maintenance to alleviate serious
                                                                        public safety or environmental concerns,
44.        DAK           R        2.4.5.1        560                     - Clarify “abandonment procedures and criteria”,
                                                                        - In table the term „criteria‟ is used with no definition, or source reference. It is
                                                                        confusing to the many
45.        GDL           R       Exception                              More description is required for the clearcuts >260 ha. Include a brief
                                     s                                  description of the forest cover types, and any decisions made around residuals.
46.        GDL           R        FMP-17                                BR: Alteration: Please develop and implement a prescription for cool/warm
            JS                     CO1                                  water creeks/lakes that the planning team agrees upon. This required
           BR                      CO2                                  alteration is meant to be consistent with the on-going work by the planning
                                   WW1                                  team to find a solution to this issue.
                                   WW2
                                                                        GDL: FMP-17 - Amend the prescription to include “Clearcut harvesting only
                                                                        permitted in areas not adjacent to critical fish habitat.”

                                                                        GDL: Supp Doc - Clearcutting of the shoreline is not permitted adjacent to
                                                                        critical fish habitat. To apply the prescription as written will require some sort
                                                                        of critical fish habitat inventory approved by an MNR fisheries biologist. Also
                                                                        the prescription must specify that the clearcutting must occur in non-
                                                                        contiguous blocks or strips (a „saw-tooth‟ approach). All the area planned to be
                                                                        harvested in this manner must count towards the AHA.

                                                                        JS: Maps - Show a slope based AOC on all permanent waterbodies and non-
                                                                        permanent waterbodies that may contain fish habitat.

                                                                        All permanent waterbodies and all waterbodies that do/may contain fish habitat
                                                                        must have a slope based AOC. Even if the prescription is normal harvest, there
                                                                        are still restrictions around 3 m of undisturbed vegetation along the shore.
47.        GDL           R        FMP-17                                This prescription needs to be modified. The outer 400 m zone can be variable
                                    EA                                  from 400-800 metres depending on the line of sight from the nest. But if
                                                                        harvesting is to occur inside this zone, and is in line of sight from the nest,
                                                                        partial harvesting only is allowed (i.e. no clearcut prescription allowed).
48.        GDL           R        FMP-17                                BR: Alteration - : Alteration: Please develop and implement a prescription
            JS                      OS                                  Osprey nests that the planning team agrees upon. This required alteration is
           BR                                                           meant to be consistent with the on-going work by the planning team to find a
                                                                        solution to this issue.


                                                                        GDL: FMP-17 - This prescription must be changed to reflect the guidelines. No
                                                                        clearcutting is permitted in the HDBZ.

                                                                        Partial harvesting only is allowed, that does not cause a high disturbance
                                                                        factor.


Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                   6 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        GDL: Supp Doc - This HDBZ prescription is a clearcut prescription, and as such,
                                                                        is an exception, which will require a monitoring program.
49.        GDL           R        FMP-17                                GDL: FMP-17 - The value is not adequately described. What is “water quality”,
            JS                     WQ                                   and where does it apply? Is it intermittent streams? Is it domestic water
                                                                        supply such as wells?

                                                                        GDL: Supp Doc - More description is required for this value. What is water
                                                                        quality?

                                                                        JS: On FMP-17 WQ (water quality) check off the Exception box and provide
                                                                        details in the Monitoring Program box.

                                                                       This prescription, as it presently reads, is an exception to the Timber
                                                                       Management Guidelines for the Protection of Fish Habitat. Harvesting within
                                                                       riparian AOCs is permitted providing selection cutting only where it can be
                                                                       demonstrated that fish habitat will be protected. In order to identify fish
                                                                       habitat, some degree of assessment must be conducted.
50.        GDL           R       Section 9       Supp                  This prescription must be changed to address that the outer buffer zone width
                                    EA           Doc                   can vary from 400-800 meters depending on the line of sight from the nest.
                                                                       Once the limit of the AOC is determined, partial harvesting only is allowed
                                                                       inside the outer zone. The prescription as written is a clearcut, and is not
                                                                       permitted.
51.        GDL           R       2.3.4.3.1     371-379         All     Problems with the Habitat for Selected Wildlife Species analysis:
                                                                     1) Not all the wildlife species are described
                                                                     2) Graphs are mislabeled: Is Alt C actually the -20% sustainability line?
                                                                     3) The graphs need to display the null run curve, since part of the test is to
                                                                         compare the trends of the alternatives to the trends of the benchmark null
                                                                         run (not just the -20% line).

52.        GDL           R       2.2.2.3.5        83          3-5       The provision of coarse woody debris is still a coarse-filter prescription,
                                                                        although at a local scale. A fine filter prescription would be to leave 4 pieces of
                                                                        coarse woody debris per hectare leaning, to provide under-snow access for
                                                                        marten during the winter months. Coarse filter is about providing general
                                                                        habitat characteristics, such as coarse woody debris. Fine filter is about
                                                                        providing habitat for a specific species that may not be adequately covered by
                                                                        the coarse filter.
53.        GDL           R        2.2.2.4         85         32-38      Much more information is required for caribou management on the GCF. All
                                                                        the decisions and approaches agreed to in the caribou management task team
                                                                        meetings need to be reflected in the FMP.
54.        GDL           R        2.3.3.1        122         28-29      The NDPEG requires that 80% of the planned clearcuts be <260 ha, not the
                                                                        disturbance patches.
55.        GDL           R        2.3.3.1        136         9-23       This section needs to reflect the fiinalized prescriptions in Table FMP-17 and
                                                                        the Supp Doc
56.        GDL           R        2.3.4.1        335          1-3       This set of constraints should be better reflected in the objectives section.

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                   7 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #       Alteration                                                                              Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                         Also, detail exactly how the constraints were set. By Forest Unit? By Forest
                                                                         Unit grouping? What groupings? What ages were used?
57.        GDL           R        2.3.4.1        337         11-12       Rationale must be provided as to why the Wildlife Habitat Alternative has a
                                                                         lower constraint on wildlife habitat than the other alternatives.
58.        GDL           R       2.3.4.3.1       380         31-33       Mean patch size decreases by 11% from the start to the end of the plan; this
                                                                         change must be explained. (From Table FMP-12, page 384)
59.        GDL           R          2.3.5        410         35-37       More description is needed here. What species are used as objectives, and
                                                                         what are used as tests of sustainability? Why 70%, when the test uses 80%?
                                                                         If this is analysis of objectives, which species had 80% targets, and which had
                                                                         70%?
60.        GDL           R        2.4.3.2        478         9-48        You have to standardize the terminology that you use in this section. Clear-cut
                                                                         area/size class distribution/planned harvest areas/harvest blocks/forest
                                                                         disturbances/disturbance patches, etc. Suggest you use clearcut for actual
                                                                         harvested areas, and disturbances for harvest areas with residuals.
61.        GDL           R        2.4.3.2        510         8-33        You need to report on the ration of guideline/non-guideline suitable on the
                                                                         forest as compared to the similar ratio in core areas.
62.        GDL           R        2.4.3.2      501,509         All       You need to describe the general forest condition in these core areas.
                                                 -510
63.         GK           R       Appendix       Table                    Requirement: Need discussion and justification for the natural disturbance fire
                                    6             on                     cycles (no fire suppression) used in the analysis of the benchmark scenario.
                                               Natural
                                               Disturba                  Rationale: Given the explicit statements in MNR policy and direction with
                                               nce fire                  regards to the necessity of science (MNR Statement of Environmental Values
                                                cycle                    1995; Beyond 2000. Strategic Directions 2000), and that the paper by
                                                                         Bergeron et al (2001) represents the best available science for claybelt fire
                                                                         cycles, there needs to be a discussion on how Bergeron‟s research was
                                                                         incorporated into the development of fire cycles in this FMP, and justification
                                                                         for using shorter fire cycles. Research by Bergeron et al. (2001) suggests an
                                                                         average fire cycle of at least 172 years for the claybelt. In this FMP the
                                                                         maximum fire cycle is 141 years for the LC1 forest unit, and the weighted
                                                                         average for the forest would be even lower.
64.         GK           R         App 9                                 Requirement: Need documentation on how this map was developed, in
                                    Fire                                 particular the large pre-1920 fires.
                                   History
                                    Map                                   Rationale: The planning team should be commended on developing a fire
                                                                           history map. All that is needed is documentation on how the areas were
                                                                           mapped. This documentation is especially needed for the large fires pre-
                                                                           1920. Were these areas mapped from an airplane? How soon after the fire
                                                                           were these areas mapped? To what degree of precision? Was any follow-up
                                                                           ground-truthing carried out?
65.         GK           R        2.2.2.2         10         40-41       Change: “…fire suppression has effectively removed the element of fire from
                                                                         the forest since the 1920‟s and 1930‟s.” to “… since the 1970‟s.”

                                                                         Rationale: I doubt very much that fire suppression in the 1920‟s and 1930‟s

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                   8 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        was very effective. Fire suppression was not effective until 1970 with the
                                                                        introduction of water bombers (Lefort et al. 2003). In addition, the statement
                                                                        in Phoenix and Krabbe (1994; Section 9 page 4 of this FMP) reads “…fire
                                                                        suppression has had an impact on the distribution of fires beginning in the
                                                                        1920‟s and 30‟s.” [Emphasis added]. “Had an impact” is the more general
                                                                        statement that is correct. “Effectively removed” is simply incorrect.

                                                                        Lefort, P., S. Gauthier, and Y. Bergeron. 2003. The influence of fire weather
                                                                        and land use on the fire activity of the Lake Abitibi Area, Eastern Canada.
                                                                        Forest Science 49: 509-521.
66.         GK           R        2.3.3.1        120         13-16      Change: Remove from OBJECTIVE A-2 the statement in brackets “(MOVE
                                                                        TOWARDS NATURAL AGE CLASS STRUCTURE…)”

                                                                        Rationale: The initial statement in this objective, “TO MAINTAIN AN OVERALL
                                                                        FOREST AGE CLASS STRUCTURE IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO A FIRE ORIGIN
                                                                        FOREST” is easily defended. Even the target overmature forest of 5% for the
                                                                        SB1 (spruce lowland), LC1 (lowland conifer mix) and SF1 (spruce upland and
                                                                        transition) forest units, can be argued to be a similar age class structure to a
                                                                        fire origin forest. However, given the long fire cycle associated with the
                                                                        claybelt (Bergeron et al. 2001), it will be much more difficult to argue that the
                                                                        5% overmature forest targets represents a “NATURAL AGE CLASS
                                                                        STRUCTURE”, in particular for the SB1, LC1, and SF1 forest units (which are
                                                                        associated with longer fire cycles). It is also noted that the biodiversity
                                                                        strategy of Phoenix and Krabbe (1994; Section 9 page 8 of this FMP) only
                                                                        includes the statement “…similar to a fire origin forest” and does not have the
                                                                        bracketed statement.

                                                                        Bergeron, Y., S. Gauthier, V. Kafka, P. Lefort, and D. Lesieur. 2001. Natural fire
                                                                        frequency for the eastern Canadian boreal forest: consequences for sustainable
                                                                        forestry. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 384-391.
67.         GK           R        2.3.3.1        120         22-25      Requirement: Need justification for the 5% overmature target, in particular for
                                                                        the Lowland and Upland Conifer Forest Units.

                                                                        Rationale: The overmature target establishes the “tail” of a regulated age-class
                                                                        distribution. A target of 5% overmature would not capture a significant
                                                                        amount of an older age-class “tail” for the claybelt with its long fire cycle. This
                                                                        lack of older age-class targets is a particular concern for the Lowland and
                                                                        Upland Conifer Forest Units. In addition, this lack of an older age-class tail is
                                                                        especially glaring considering that using the negative exponential age class
                                                                        distribution pattern, 36.8% of the area would be older than the fire cycle (Van
                                                                        Wagner 1978). Even using the fire cycles given in this FMP, which are
                                                                        underestimates in comparison to Bergeron et al. (2001), there would be
                                                                        considerably more area in the overmature age classes (see Bergeron et al.
                                                                        1999). The graphs of the Null Run (could not find FMP -11 and -12 for the
                                                                        Benchmark Scenario) indicates a greater proportion in the overmature class.
Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                   9 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        The result of using only a 5% overmature target is that the target age-class
                                                                        distribution expressed in year 2105 (see section 2.3.4.3, FMP-11, page 343-
                                                                        344) of the available forested landbase simply resembles the old commodity
                                                                        management scenario of a 100-year rotation, regulated forest. The overmature
                                                                        tail is almost completely reliant upon the unavailable forest landbase.
                                                                        If the justification for limiting the overmature age classes to 5% is a socio-
                                                                        economic reason (i.e., we can not afford the reduction in harvest with an
                                                                        overmature target greater than 5%), then this rationale needs to be explicitly
                                                                        stated. If the area in overmature age class is actually larger due to area
                                                                        substitution, then this explanation needs to be explicitly stated and longer
                                                                        rotations planned for the older substituted area.

                                                                        Bergeron, Y., B. Harvey, A. Leduc, and S. Gauthier. 1999. Forest management
                                                                        guidelines based on natural disturbance dynamics: Stand- and forest-level
                                                                        considerations. Forestry Chronicle 75: 49-54.
                                                                        Van Wagner, C.E. 1978. Age-class distribution and the forest fire cycle.
                                                                        Canadian Journal of Forest Research 8: 220-227.

68.         GK           R        2.3.3.1        121         21-23      Change: Remove from Target: the statement “The intended result is a
                                                                        landscape-level forest condition that is as close to the known natural condition
                                                                        as possible…”

                                                                        Rationale: The same previous comments for Section 2.3.3.1, page 120, lines
                                                                        13-16 apply. The research by Bergeron et al. (2001) clearly shows that for the
                                                                        claybelt of the Lake Abitibi Model Forest the fire cycle is long (average age of
                                                                        the forest is 172 years) and extremely variable (98-733 years). The result is a
                                                                        landscape composed of large areas of recent fire origin forests (< 120 years
                                                                        old) interspersed among large areas of late fire-origin forests (>150 years old).
                                                                        Interestingly, the fire history map in Appendix 10 of this FMP shows a similar
                                                                        pattern. Since the overmature targets is only 5%, and keeping in mind that
                                                                        fire suppression was not effective until 1970 (Lefort et al. 2003), I doubt that
                                                                        the managed forest condition will be “close to the known natural condition as
                                                                        possible.”

                                                                        Bergeron, Y., S. Gauthier, V. Kafka, P. Lefort, and D. Lesieur. 2001. Natural fire
                                                                        frequency for the eastern Canadian boreal forest: consequences for sustainable
                                                                        forestry. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 384-391.
69.        JMD           R        FMP-24                                Volumes in 5 year commitment volume column should reflect the volumes
                                                                        given in the table in the Aug. 23 letter on Management Unit Contributions to
                                                                        Tom Croswell from John Copeland. Volumes need to reflect the targets and
                                                                        comments are to be replaced by the stated volumes. Grant‟s Commitment type
                                                                        is to be supply agreement under development.
70.        JMD           R        FMP-24                                Spruce Falls expected volume under the 5 year committed volume is to be
                                                                        (600,000 *5) 3,000,000 M3 which is our recognized Management Unit

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 10 of 32
                                               List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section        Pg #       Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        Contribution from the Cosens Forest for that mill, (150,000 m3 comes from the
                                                                        freehold to give 750,000 m3). I believe 155,000 m3 of the 750,000 m3
                                                                        identified in this table for Spruce Falls actually Goes to excel as part of an MOA
                                                                        and this is reflected in their MROL. This table should reflect this arrangement.
71.        JMD           R        FMP-24                                Why should the beneficiary mills take a reduction in volume when, by way off
                                                                        allocation, SFI had increased their volume above the 600,000 m3/yr level. This
                                                                        increase should some be shared by the other mills until their stated MUC‟s have
                                                                        been met.
72.        JMD           R          2.2.1          6         17-38      Volumes in this description and list to not match our records, please bring this
                                                                        section in line with Copeland to Croswell letter of May 20, 2003.
73.        JMD           R        Available      434           5        What differences in volume. Area is going down, total volume is going down,
                                  Harvest                               yet you say you are moving to younger higher yielding stands. Need some
                                    Area                                better explanation here as to what your point is.
74.        JMD           R         Wood          553         38-39      I fail to see the reference in Section 2.3.6 about the drop in SPF from
                                  Utilizatio                            1,230,000 m3 to 1,100,000 m3. I noted the projected volume drop of 230,000
                                    n by                                m3 of wood with no reference as to what it is compared to and I noticed the
                                     Mill                               projected volume estimates in the tables of the section (and it seems these
                                                                        projected volumes were not adhered to anyway in the allocation process).
                                                                        FMP-24 shows the available utilized volume for SPF as 1,197,760 not
                                                                        1,100,000. This should be explained. Why is there an increase over the
                                                                        projected volumes and will this make the SFMM run for the chosen alternative
                                                                        no longer valid? The ramifications of over allocating the volume levels from
                                                                        what was the basis of the plan and the positions you state in the results
                                                                        explanation of the plan must be discussed; it must be clear that the LCC is
                                                                        aware of this strategy to over allocate through substitution (not following the
                                                                        model output) and the potential impact of this strategy on future forest
                                                                        condition and harvest levels. I notice that the 2.4.7 output shows a much
                                                                        larger drop in available harvest in the next term then that given in the wood
                                                                        supply output for the chosen alternative. This is a result of your allocation
                                                                        choices. The allocations need to be adjusted to be in closer alignment with the
                                                                        intent of the chosen alternative; the variance between the output the chosen
                                                                        alternative and 2.4.7. must be lowered. Any variance that exists must be
                                                                        explained in the text of the plan and received buy-in by the LCC.
75.        JMD           R                       553           41       The 750,000 m3 is a combo of 600,000 m3 Crown and 150,000 m3 private
                                                                        and so is not all Crown wood.
76.        JMD           R                       555           25       I don‟t understand where the 120,000 m3 comes from, it our understanding
                                                                        that Excel‟s volumes are made up of 96,000 m3 of Minister‟s commitment (?),
                                                                        155,000 m3 of B2B arrangement and the 15,236 from the old Kap Crown
                                                                        Licence and 1,930 B2B with Cayouette Cabinets.
77.        JMD           R                       556           25       Columbia‟s Commitment letter is not a conditional commitment letter it is a
                                                                        “commitment letter”. Having said that, the company has agreed to replace
                                                                        their commitment letter with a supply agreement that has a target volume of
                                                                        79520 m3 of aspen and 2200 m3 of white birch; any mention of “all” anything
                                                                        has been removed and so should not be referenced in the text of the plan.

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 11 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        The supply agreement is well along on its path to OIC approval.
78.        JMD           R                       556           31       Same as in the above comment, Grant has been given a target volume (as
                                                                        stated in the paragraph) but not “all”. The reference in the text here is more
                                                                        subtle but it would be more appropriate to steer away from the term “all”.
79.         JS           R       2.3.4.3.1       367                    Include figures for all of the selected wildlife species showing the level of
                                                                        habitat achievement. Provide detailed text explaining why the habitat for some
                                                                        of these species fell below the lower bound of natural variation.

                                                                        It is acceptable that the selected alternative results in some species of wildlife
                                                                        habitat to fall below the lower bound of natural variation. An explanation and
                                                                        rationale of why this occurred should be noted in this section to justify the low
                                                                        levels of habitat.
80.         JS           R         Table         488                    The following Planned Forest Disturbances (Harvest/Contingency Areas) require
                                    D-1                                 additional Residual Forest Area (Insular or Peninsular):
                                                                        Location     Ins. Target Area % of Target        Pen. Target Area % of Target
                                                                        F031A             7 ha               0%                28 ha             82 %
                                                                        F034A             5 ha             99 %                20 ha              0%
                                                                        F035B             3 ha               0%                13 ha             36 %
                                                                        F035D             6 ha               0%                25 ha           102 %
                                                                        F039B            14 ha                0%                54 ha            38 %
                                                                        F039D            17 ha                0%                68 ha            51 %
                                                                        F039E            14 ha                0%                54 ha            47 %
                                                                        F044D            17 ha                0%                68 ha           106 %
                                                                        F045G            14 ha                0%                56 ha            31 %
                                                                        F048B              7 ha               0%                27 ha            34 %
                                                                        F058A              6 ha               0%                26 ha            35 %
                                                                        F061N              5 ha               0%                18 ha             45 %
                                                                        F069D              7 ha               0%                29 ha             71 %
                                                                        F069F             17 ha               0%                 67 ha            85 %
                                                                        F071F             14 ha               0%                 53 ha            56 %
                                                                        F071G             10 ha                0%                38 ha            67 %
                                                                        F071H               9 ha               0%                35 ha             87 %
                                                                        F071I              13 ha               0%                51 ha            86 %
                                                                        F071K              12 ha              0%                 45 ha           103 %
                                                                        F074C               6 ha               0%                24 ha            75 %
                                                                        F080E               9 ha              0%                 36 ha            57 %
                                                                        F090B               4 ha               0%                15 ha            79 %
                                                                        F090E              10 ha              0%                 40 ha            85 %
                                                                        F094A              18 ha              0%                 69 ha           110 %
                                                                        F095A              11 ha              0%                 42 ha             29 %
                                                                        F102D               5 ha               0%                21 ha              53 %
                                                                        F105A              11 ha              0%                 43 ha              89 %
                                                                        F108B              14 ha              0%                 55 ha              77 %
                                                                        F108F               4 ha              0%                 15 ha              61 %

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 12 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        F108H               9 ha               0%                 34 ha                22 %
                                                                        F002F              4 ha                0%                 14 ha                31 %
                                                                        F040F              8 ha                0%                 34 ha                87 %
                                                                        F041A             12 ha                0%                 45 ha               100 %
                                                                        F041B               7 ha               0%                 27 ha                 88 %
                                                                        F074F             13 ha                0%                  53 ha               95 %
                                                                        F076A                5 ha              0%                 21 ha                57 %
                                                                        F100F               8 ha               0%                 33 ha                84 %
                                                                        F119A              16 ha               0%                 64 ha                91 %

                                                                        The listed harvest or contingency disturbances have a 0 % achievement of
                                                                        insular residual forest area and are not compensated sufficiently by an over-
                                                                        achievement of peninsular residual forest area. In disturbance F034A, the
                                                                        opposite condition exists. Therefore, these disturbance patches require insular
                                                                        area (or peninsular area) to conform with the intent of the Natural Disturbance
                                                                        Pattern Emulation Guidelines. These areas are all greater than 100 ha in area
                                                                        and therefore represent the larger disturbance patches.
81.         LJL          R       Supp doc        4.1a                   The heronry on Dunrankin Lake is missing from the values map as well as the
                                     2                                  osprey nest on Missinaibi River. Please add them to the map
82.         LJL          R        2.2.2.4         85           26       Only the COSEWIC listed species are identified but not the provincial SAR. As
                                                                        we now have a provincial SAR act we should be listing those. That would
                                                                        include bald eagles (regulated) and great grey owls.
83.         LQ           R        FMP-10                                There is in SFMM a Post-Renewal succession rule for BW1->Plant ->BW1 Exten
                                                                        (i.e. part failure), also for PO1, but no SGR for it. Need SGR.
84.       LQ, RL         R        FMP-10                                In SFMM, a MW2 treated Bas has 3 outcomes(SP1, MW1, PO1), yet SGRs for
                                                                        the SP1 & PO1 outcomes are missing
85.       LQ, RL         R         FMP-1          18                o     FMP 1 Crown Managed Protection (47810) vs SFMM Protf (47554)
                                                                    o     FMP 1B&S = 50,478; SFMM B&S = 25,605
                                                                    o     FMP 1 Crown Managed Production (1,458,858) vs SFMM (Avail + B&S) (
                                                                          1455789)
                                                                    o     FMP 1 Crown Managed Productive (1,506,668) vs SFMM (Avail + B&S +
                                                                          Protf) 1,503,353)
                                                                    o     FMP 1 Crown Parks 15,804 vs SFMM 15725
                                                                    o     FMP 1 Crown Unmanaged 105733 vs SFMM 105659 (vs 106662 proposed at
                                                                          time of plan (taken from Table 3 page 87))
                                                                        Please match or explain noted differences in plan text
86.       LQ, RL         R        2.3.3.1        138           3        Have you used the high potential cultural heritage model? If so, it is a strategy
                                                                        that was employed
87.       LQ, RL         R       2.3.3.2.1       140           35       Plan text says that the OB modifier (occurring in many FUs) in the FRI indicates
                                                                        „original forest depleted of conifer by budworm‟; Appendix 5 says all „budworm
                                                                        depleted‟ stands became the SP1 FU. Please provide clarification.
88.       LQ, RL         R       2.3.4.3.1       371           4        Pages 371-379
                                                                         There are 21 wildlife species to report on. Please provide text description and
                                                                          graphs for all not just a few of the selected

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 13 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #       Alteration                                                                              Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                         All Figure 14s have a straight flat Ind Demand line. A check against the runs
                                                                          show this is not the case. Please correct and re-do graphs
89.       LQ, RL         R        2.4.3.2        478           9         The distinction between clearcuts and disturbances to be made clear.
                                                                         It would help the discussion to mention that only the 20-year disturbances
                                                                          are compared to the template (clearcuts and 5 year disturbances aren‟t
                                                                          comparable)
                                                                         The disturbance distribution Figure A-6 shows 3 disturbances >2500ha, when
                                                                          actually there are 7 (3 have >2500ha in current clearcuts).
                                                                         Discuss the implications for the landscape of the fact that 307 of the 311
                                                                          harvest areas don‟t connect to old harvest blocks
                                                                         Discuss non-achievement of residual targets on more than half of the
                                                                          disturbances
                                                                         Discuss handling of insular vs. peninsular – were joint targets used?
                                                                         Require a table showing the math behind calculation of SFMM NDPE residual
                                                                          targets (or in Appendix 6 under Accumulating Reserves)
90.         MC           R         Supp.                                 AOC PL-3649-07 does not show up in Supp. Doc. Please add.
                                   Doc.
                                 Section 9
91.      OP-ERM          R        FMP-17                                 AOC width should be defined for protection and release spraying adjacent to
                                    OLL                                  boundary (no drift into OLL sites). Renewal and tending should be permitted
                                                                         within AOC, but timing restrictions may be warranted.

                                                                         No pesticide/herbicide drift to enter park.
                                                                         Renewal adjacent to park is encouraged.
                                                                         Noise associated with these operations is a minor concern.

92.         PB           R          Text         P122          32        Reference should be Table 12 not Table 4
                                  Binder 1
93.         PB           R          Text         P412        18-19       I think it is important to list which wildlife species preferred habitat not within
                                  Binder 1                               bounds of natural variation (80%). Analysis indicate Black Bear (foraging),
                                                                         Boreal Chickadee, Linx, Caribou, Deer Moose, Moose (foraging), Pileated
                                                                         Woodpecker, Snowshoe Hare are below lower bound of natural variation.
                                                                         Need text rationale.
94.         PB           R          Text        P414-                    First Term Annual Average Area (ha) column needs correction. Does not match
                                  Binder 1       415                     SFMM selected run.
                                               FMP-15
95.         PB           R          Text        P372 -                   Graph should include natural run and Bounds of Natural variation (e.g. 20%
                                  Binder 1       379                     above highest value & 20% below the lowest value of first 100 years)
96.         PB           R          Text       405-407                   Please check harvest area for each FU & total (e.g. Total 5 year term for
                                  Binder 1                               selected – Harvest Area - 923,098 ha
                                  FMP-14
                                                                         Tending Area – need clarification of tending. Tending to mean commercial
                                                                         thinning or chemical spraying?
97.         PB           R        FMP-18       512-513                   AHA column does not match selected SFMM run.

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 14 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        Please address.
98.         PB           R        FMP-13       389-390                  Acceptable levels (from/to) for most wildlife species incorrect. Three species
                                                                        repeated in table twice, Blue-spotted Salamander, Moose (foraging), Moose
                                                                        (winter). Black Bear (foraging), Boreal Chickadee, Linx, Caribou, Deer Moose,
                                                                        Moose (foraging), Pileated Woodpecker, Snowshoe Hare are below lower
                                                                        bound of natural variation. Strong rational needed.
99.         PB           R         FMP-5          82                    Management unit values for the current and DFFC columns does not equal
                                                                        SFMM preferred habitat values for term 1. Please address

100.        PB           R         FMP-5          82                    DFFC year (2065) not the same as FMP-13 (2025)
101.        RL           R         FMP 3          69                o     FMP 3 values for current and 20 year intervals you provided do not match
                                                                          SFMM (Available + B&S) for same time periods. Please correct
                                                                    o     You are only required to display the available area by FU for the DFFC period
                                                                          (and are required to identify the timeframe). If you maintain the table as is
                                                                          you need to identify which 20 year period is the DFFC
                                                                    o     FMP 3 current column by FU (ha) must equal total of available area column in
                                                                          FMP 9 by FU and first (or plan start year column in FMP 11 – none of these 3
                                                                          tables currently match up – and only FMP 11 matches with SFMM. Please fix
                                                                          tables so appropriate links are made between them and the model.
102.        RL           R        2.2.2.4         85           32       You have made it appear that GCF offers little to woodland caribou. GCF from
                                                                        Highway 11 north is considered as part of contiguous woodland caribou range
                                                                        for Northeast Region. Habitat preference varies regionally within provincial
                                                                        woodland caribou range and also exhibits seasonal variation. While the GCF
                                                                        may not have many waterbodies similar to the Northwest, large expanses of
                                                                        mature and over-mature spruce transitions, spruce flats and spruce bogs
                                                                        (which GFC does have) provide suitable and used habitat and allows spatial
                                                                        requirements needed by woodland caribou to be met.
                                                                        You also need to reference any/all planning considerations you undertook for
                                                                        woodland caribou
103.        RL           R        2.3.3.1        127           10       There is no „SFMM analysis of sustainability‟; please correct here (and on page
                                                                        128 lines 1-3) to state that it is based upon 20% of the high and low point
                                                                        within the natural range as determined by an analysis of the null run
104.        RL           R       2.3.3.2.1       143           33        FMP 9 Available & Unavailable is off slightly from SFMM
                                 & FMP 9                                 FMP 9 Protection Forest total area does not equal FMP 1
                                                                         FMP 9 Available does not match FMP 1
                                                                        Please address.
105.        RL           R       2.3.3.2.1       147                    Figure 10a requires same identifiers as remainder of figures
106.        RL           R        2.3.4.1        336           4        Text suggests you are going from 40 to 60%. While you have modelled a 50%
                                                                        increase for SP1 it is from 30 to 45%. Change text to reflect actual modelling
107.        RL           R        2.3.4.1        337           11       Objective reads as if habitat can drop to 30% below the lower BNV – this
                                                                        would not enhance wildlife habitat as the run name would suggest
108.        RL           R        2.3.4.2        340           36       You have flagged 2020 as your DFFC. This does not conform to where you
                                                                        have identified a DFFC earlier. Please correct

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 15 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
109.        RL           R        2.3.4.3        343                     FMP 11 requires that DFFC year be identified on table
                                                                         FMP 11 2005 year matches SFMM but needs to match FMP 3 current and
                                                                          FMP Available – please ensure match between tables
110.        RL           R       2.3.4.3.1       367           44       Should be FMP 5
111.      RL, LQ         R       FMP 3, 5         69                    There is confusion as to when your DFFC period is:
                                  and 11                            o     FMP 3 no clear identifier
                                                                    o     FMP 5 DFFC@2065
                                                                    o     P340 DFFC@2020
                                                                    o     P354 year 2025 is used for comparison
                                                                    o     p380: DFFC first reached @2025
                                                                    o     FMP 12 – no year identified
                                                                    o     FMP 13 – all alts have 2025; but at one point selected is identified at 2010
                                                                          then 2025
                                                                        Please ensure all appropriate text and tables have same DFFC and are
                                                                        identified
112.      RL, LQ         R         FMP-5          81           17   o     Values for current and DFFC period (2065) in FMP 5 do not match SFMM
                                                                          „Areas of Preferred Habitat by Wildlife Species‟. Please correct
                                                                    o     Please add habitat for BSSA and note in a footnote that it is Preferred +
                                                                          Marginal
                                                                    o     Footnote at bottom of FMP 5 needs to note that numbers for MU are from
                                                                          SFMM SMA
113.      RL, LQ         R        2.3.4.1        334           26       Here & page 411 line 15: You have modelled based on a budget of 4.3M not
                                                                        revenues. Change statement or model. If decide to base on contributions
                                                                        state actual $ level with an explanation, as was done on p 401 line 29 (or the
                                                                        $/m3 as on p569 line 42)
114.      RL, LQ         R        FMP-12         381                     The Unit of Measure must display the acceptable BNV range or other
                                                                          appropriate range by measure and for each period the achieved value must
                                                                          be displayed in the same format (i.e. forest diversity indices, wildlife habitat,
                                                                          etc. need their BNV range displayed under Unit of Measure and then for each
                                                                          period a value in that format (e.g. ha) - % change/achieved is not
                                                                          acceptable. Need to display so easy to tell if met target or not). This needs
                                                                          to be done for all alts for FMP 12
                                                                         % change in FU is identified with year 2000 – should it be 2005?
                                                                         Forecast AHA Available to Utilize – there is some difference between these
                                                                          numbers & SFMM
115.      RL, LQ         R          2.3.5        412           4        Objective Achievement Section Evaluation – Selection of MA:
                                                                         does not mention that the Objective B-2 has not been met
                                                                         Evaluation of Selected MA avoids discussing the point that it fails to achieve
                                                                          the sustainability target of >=80% of the null run minimum for deer mouse,
                                                                          lynx, hare, moose foraging, and caribou (FMP 12 needs to have target range
                                                                          based upon null run BNV). All of these non-achievements and the extent
                                                                          must be noted and discussed
116.      RL, LQ         R        FMP 16         434           8         Discuss the FUs that do not remain stable
                                                                         FU AHA must equal FU AHA from FMP 15 – please fix

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 16 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
117.     RL, LQ,         R         FMP 8         141                    FUs must show the weighted average site class, stocking, and species comp
          GDL
118.       TM            R         FMP-7         107                    FMP-7 needs to be updated with some missing land use information within our
                                                                        district. C1702 and Game Preserve policy has not been referenced in the
                                                                        current table.
119.        LQ          Edit                                            It would be tremendously helpful to the reader to have major sections start on
                                                                        fresh pages so that pieces of text are not separated by pages of tables and
                                                                        figures.
120.        LQ          Edit                     497           18       The distinction between “Land Base” and “Area Not Including Water” is unclear
121.        BR           E        FMP-17       468-469                  Two identical tables exist for Paypeeshek Lake in FMP-17 – pages 468 and
                                                                        469.
122.       BR            E       2.2.2.3.1        16           49       Should this be Section 4 of Supp Doc.
123.       BR            E       2.2.2.3.3        68           48       Should this be 4 levels of detail.
124.       BR            E       2.2.3.1.2        92           15       Unclear wording/typo.
125.       BR            E       2.3.3.2.2       161           48       PB is code „4‟?
126.       BR            E          2.3.4        330           29       Should be „4‟ levels.
127.       BR            E        Fig. 13a       368                    The legend in this graph is incorrect: Alt. „E‟
128.       BR            E        2.4.4.1        541           20       Should be „PO1‟
129.       GDL           E       2.2.2.3.3        68           47       The reference should be (Bridge et al, OMNR, 2000).
130.        JS           E        2.2.2.2         12           15       Delete <information>, 10th word in line. Word not necessary
131.        JS           E       2.2.2.3.1        15           28       Change <lost> to <lot>. Typo
132.        JS           E       2.2.2.3.3        79           2        Delete <according>. Word not necessary
133.        JS           E       2.2.2.3.3        79           11       Change <seven> to <eight>. Eight major forest types are cited in Table 1.
                                                                        Forest Unit by Development Stage.
134.        JS           E       2.2.2.3.4        81           13       Add <as> after <well>. This was meant to be read as <as well as>…
135.        JS           E       2.2.2.3.4        81           30       Change <ha> to <has>. Typo
136.        JS           E        2.2.2.4         86           48       Add <as> after <well>. This was meant to be read as <as well as>.
137.        JS           E        2.2.2.4         87           11       Change <are> to<been>. This was meant to be read as <have been
                                                                        applied>…
138.        JS           E        2.3.3.1        137           43       Remove 2nd <,> after <rail,>. Typo
139.        JS           E        2.3.3.1        137           44       Add <to> after <used>. Incorrect grammar
140.        JS           E        2.3.3.3        327           46       Delete <be>. Incorrect grammar
141.        KE           E         2.3.8         436           29       The text suggests that only three primary road extensions are planned.
                                                                        However, Table FMP -26 list four primary road extensions. Please review.
142.        KE           E          2.4.5        559           32       Editing grammar error “is are” highlighted in the text.
143.        KE           E          2.4.5        559           24       Section 9 of the supplementary documentation is for the AOC not for Roads
                                                                        this should read section 8.
144.        KE           E          2.4.5        559           25       Section 10 of the supplementary documentation is for the stand listings this
                                                                        should read section 9.
145.        KE           E          2.4.5        559           29       Section 10 of the supplementary documentation is for the stand listings this
                                                                        should read section 9.
146.        KE           E          2.4.5        559           33       Section 10 of the supplementary documentation is for the stand listings this
                                                                        should read section 9.

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 17 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
147.        KE           E        2.4.5.1        560           6        Section 9 of the supplementary documentation is for the AOC this should read
                                                                        section 8.
148.        KE           E        2.4.5.1        567           10       Section 9 of the supplementary documentation is for the AOC this should read
                                                                        section 8.
149.        KE           E        2.4.5.2        567           35       Section 10 of the supplementary documentation is for the stand listings this
                                                                        should read section 9.
150.        KE           E        2.4.5.2        568           8        In stream work “will” be conducted
151.        KE           E        2.4.5.2        568           19       Section 10 of the supplementary documentation is for the stand listings this
                                                                        should read section 9.
152.        LQ           E        2.3.3.1        126           3        The commas after „forest‟ and „marten‟ create a parenthetical phrase and thus
                                                                        alter the sentence to say that the entire forest is in the denominator. Omit the
                                                                        commas. (This sentence also occurs elsewhere in the Plan.)
153.        PBr          E                        15           28       Please change “…inventory was missing lost of…” to “…inventory was missing
                                                                        lots of …”
154.        PBr          E                       442           22       The stand listing can be found in section 10 not section 11. Please review and
                                                                        correct.
155.        BB           C       Appendix      General                  Basemap tiles numbers should be displayed on harvest maps for better
                                     1                                  understanding of location.
                                  (Part 2)
156.        BB           C       Appendix                               It is very difficult to link the stand listings to each individual harvest block due
                                     1                                  to scale of map. It is hard to derive individual stands from a 1:50 000 scale
                                  (Part 2)                              map.
157.        BF           C        FMP-10                                A number of the FTG ages seem too long especially for Intensive SGR‟s with
                                                                        planting eg PJ1 Intensives going back to PJ1 - FTG period should be 5 years
                                                                        instead of 10, for FFU of SP1 should be 7 years, etc. Upland planted Sb should
                                                                        be FTG and 1m tall in 7 years on all FU‟s.

158.        BF           C                       Supp                   A small scale overview map of the poplar decline areas should be included in
                                                 Doc                    the supp doc to provide a clear summary and reference point in time. How
                                                                        much and what proportion of the affected poplar decline areas were actually
                                                                        allocated for harvest in this 5 year plan?
159.        BF           C        2.3.3.2                               SGR text – generally well done
160.        BF           C       2.3.3.2.2       160           39       Cedar WG‟s - Explain what prescription options will be used to manage for
                                                                        cedar in Cedar WG‟s. Recommend that Ce clumps only be lightly thinned (30-
                                                                        40% removal) to provide adequate seed source, habitat, etc. Methods such as
                                                                        group seed trees, standards, strips, small patch cuts or uniform shelterwood
                                                                        (max 50% removal on first pass) should be considered. Considering our
                                                                        general lack of experience with managing cedar, a cautious approach should
                                                                        be taken to prevent things like seedling desiccation or raised water tables, etc,
                                                                        to ensure cedar is maintained, as well as the most effective methods developed
                                                                        for managing both upland and lowland cedar.
161.        BF           C                       541          40        Hardwood utilization - In order to meet the requirements of the amendment to
                                                 553         1-10       the Scaling and FOS Manuals (see below) and the approved May, 1999 MNR
                                                                        document "Towards Resolving Utilization Issues - A Process to Manage
Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 18 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        Unutilized Fibre," specific strategies should be included here to deal with
                                                                        various FU's that have a significant amount of hardwood (Po, Bw) and are
                                                                        planned for extensive, natural regeneration.

                                                                        Strategies should include deferral of harvest at the AWS stage of allocated
                                                                        stands or blocks with excessive (for eg 40% or more species composition of Po
                                                                        Bw) until later in the 5-year FMP, if adequate markets are not confirmed to be
                                                                        available in a given year. See NER FMP Specialist for NER Po Bw utilization
                                                                        guideline and sample text from other plans.

                                                                        The following amendment to the Scaling and Forest Operations and Silviculture
                                                                        Manuals was approved on June 12th, 2000:
                                                                        "The minimum utilization standards must be followed on all forest operations
                                                                        unless otherwise described in an approved forest management plan. For
                                                                        example, merchantable trees and/or wood fibre may be left at a harvest site in
                                                                        order to satisfy silviculture and habitat requirements, or because of market-
                                                                        related issues associated with a certain species or product. Leaving
                                                                        merchantable trees at the harvest site because of market-related issues must
                                                                        not jeopardize the silviculture or habitat objectives of that harvest site. Reasons
                                                                        for leaving merchantable trees and/or wood fibre in specific areas within a
                                                                        forest must be described in the approved forest management plan. Failure to
                                                                        comply with minimum utilization standards unless otherwise described in the
                                                                        approved forest management plan is a wasteful practice. No person shall
                                                                        commit wasteful practices in forest operations."
162.        BR           C          Draft                               This is a good draft plan:
                                    FMP                                 Plan is generally well written and well organized.
                                                                        Map products are very good quality.
                                                                        Supp Doc and Appendices are largely complete and well organized.
163.        BR           C         2.4.7,                               Please see attached comment: Wood supply concerns in strategic and
                                  SFMM,                                 operational planning.
                                  FMP-18
164.        BR           C        Map #4                                There are a large number of tertiary roads options proposed for access into
                                  – Block                               block F032A and up into F027. Ideally one option should be selected and
                                   F032A                                proposed.
165.        BR           C        Map #6                                These is an approx. 200 ha block of timber on the south end of this block that
                                  – Block                               will be isolated if not harvested with this block. Could this be considered for
                                    F065                                utilization now?
166.        BR           C         Supp.                                Sweet Lake Road 1 – this road is proposed as Secondary but intends to
                                    Doc.                                connect to Hearst Forest for a longer term road. Is this a secondary road that
                                 Section 8                              will become a primary road?
167.        BR           C        FMP-20         526                    There is a large difference between available and forecast volumes for the PO1
                                                                        forest unit. Is there an error here?
168.        BR           C        FMP-23         552                    Further distinction between Lecours and Tembec-Hearst license area will be
                                                                        required.

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 19 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
169.        BR           C        2.4.5.2        568           16       It is not clearly stated whether tertiary roads will be reforested. It is assumed
                                                                        that not all tertiary roads will be reforested for practical reasons, but there is
                                                                        also a general assumption that in-block roads will be returned to productive
                                                                        forest as much as possible.
170.       DLB           C       FMP2005        Map 3        Adam        I want to draw attention to cut blocks F007A, F004A, F004B, F004C and
                                 Map 8.1        of 11        Creek      F004D on Map 8.1 of the Areas Selected for Harvest Operations Composite
                                                             Area       Map. The cut blocks show minimum reserves of 30 meters. This area is highly
                                                                        susceptible to erosion. Adam Creek is a diversion that is used on an annual
                                                                        basis to divert excessive flows that exceed plant generating capacity at the
                                                                        Little Long Generating Station. Prior to dam and diversion construction in 1963,
                                                                        Adam Creek was a natural brook trout stream which measured a couple
                                                                        meters in width. Presently Adam creek measures several hundred meters in
                                                                        width and in a few locations exceeds 400m. Banks are unstable and measure
                                                                        on average 20 meters in height and exceed 30 meters in specific locations.
                                                                        Due to the significance of the sensitivities identified through the Water
                                                                        Management Planning process associated with Adam Creek and the accelerated
                                                                        erosion occurring along the 37km length of the diversion it is suggested that
                                                                        Tembec inquire through Ontario Power Generation what impacts may be
                                                                        accelerated with the removal of vegetation. OPG has conducted erosion studies
                                                                        and may provide valuable input. Aside from the impact of forest operations on
                                                                        Erosion in this area, occupational health and safety would be another issue
                                                                        that needs to be reviewed. The Kapuskasing Area office of the MNR has recent
                                                                        photos of large scale bank failure where several thousand tones of soil and
                                                                        forest has failed, traveled and been deposited into Adam Creek – distance at
                                                                        times exceeding 100m. This is occurring frequently along the extent of Adam
                                                                        Creek. Input from a erosion specialist would be valuable in ensuring that forest
                                                                        operations in the Adam Creek area do not exacerbate erosion in an already
                                                                        highly sensitive area.
171.       GDL           C        FMP-17                                For moose concentration areas, you should focus harvest and residuals to
                                    CA                                  maximize moose productivity, by maximizing edge between browse and cover.
                                                                        Also, consider limiting chemical tending to maximize browse production.
172.       GDL           C        FMP-17                                This prescription doesn‟t make sense. The value is the OLL site, but what is the
                                    OLL                                 AOC? What is the boundary of the AOC. What are the prescriptions?
173.       GDL           C        2.4.3.2      488-496         All      What does the “projected” column mean? Is it residual area that needs to be
                                                                        found either at the AWS or the operational stage? Do you plan to meet these
                                                                        projected targets? If so, what are the strategies that will be used to find the
                                                                        “projected” residual? You need to list the strategies for determining these
                                                                        extra residuals.
174.       GDL           c                        10         22-34      You could expand a little on the implications of the soils and the sites. Have
                                                                        you had to balance winter and summer ground? Have you had to limit the
                                                                        model to harvest only so much of a forest unit? Certainly, there are other
                                                                        management decisions that you have made resulting from these described
                                                                        conditions. You don‟t have to list them all, but a couple of key examples would
                                                                        help understand how the management of the forest is driven by the unique

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 20 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        characteristics of the GCF.
175.       GDL           C        2.2.2.2         11         25-28      Is it really the case that a stand after harvesting by horse logging looks like a
                                                                        stand after harvesting using feller-bunchers and grapple skidders?
176.       GDL           C        2.2.2.2         11         43-46      Timber management plans in the late 80‟s were focused on timber
                                                                        management for forest industry. The harvest pattern was modified by
                                                                        guidelines that created edge for moose through having cutovers of about 100
                                                                        ha, and providing edge between winter cover and browse.
177.       GDL           C        2.2.2.2         13         10-12      Some sort of summary table of the information from appendix 18 would be
                                                                        helpful here.
178.       GDL           C       2.2.2.3.2        68         11-13      It is possible to run the past forest cover (2000) through the new Forest Unit
                                                                        sort, to determine the forest units from 5 years ago using the new forest units,
                                                                        and report the change on this table?
179.       GDL           C       2.2.2.3.4        81         29-31      What has changed in the habitat classification? The sort still uses the habitat
                                                                        units in SFMMtool, which have not changed substantially. If the sort has
                                                                        changed, then run the 2000 coverage through the new sort, and determine the
                                                                        change.
180.       GDL           C        2.3.2.2        110         37-43      This value was available in the last plan, from 1990-2000. What is the
                                                                        comparison for this plan, and what are the implications of the change, if any?
181.       GDL           C        2.3.3.1        118           3        I presume by „Structural Elements‟, you mean snags and coarse woody debris.
                                                                        Maybe you can use these as examples to make it clearer?
182.       GDL           C        2.3.3.1        120         17-38      What are the old growth targets? 10% in older than rotation age? 15%/5%
                                                                        mature/overmature? What is rotation age? Is it eligibility age? For jackpine,
                                                                        the eligibility age is 50. Does this mean you only intend to keep 10% of the
                                                                        jackpine over 50 years of age?
183.       GDL           C        2.3.3.1        120          2-4       Where did the 50% acceptable variability come from? It seems to be a large
                                                                        value, if the desire is to maintain the present amount of each forest type. It
                                                                        appears you will allow half the existing amount; is this maintenance?
184.       GDL           C        2.3.3.1        120         40-45      Conversely, trying to maintain the harvest acceleration factor and the volume
                                                                        targets that go with it limit the opportunity to manage the forest for an amount
                                                                        of old growth that is based on the longer fire cycles that make more sense in
                                                                        the Claybelt Forest. I presume you have a statement similar to this in the
                                                                        objective that talks about volume targets. I.e. “Achievement of these volume
                                                                        targets decrease the amount of old forest available to meet biodiversity targets,
                                                                        and trade-offs will have to occur to ensure that a viable amount of old growth
                                                                        is in place now and in the future.” Or, you could remove this paragraph.
185.       GDL           C        2.3.3.1        124         9-10       Residual stands must be at least 6 metres tall, and at least 0.3 stocking. NSR
                                                                        and B&S are not acceptable as residual patches (low quality or otherwise), if
                                                                        they don‟t meet the above criteria.
186.       GDL           C        2.3.3.1        124         18-37      Good description of your strategy. You may want to add after line 27 that the
                                                                        flexible areas will maintain roughly the same size, shape and location, but may
                                                                        be altered for operational flexibility.
187.       GDL           C        2.3.3.1        126           All      You may want to mention the marten research work that is taking place on the
                                                                        GCF, and the support that Tembec/Spruce Falls is providing, as another
                                                                        strategy to manage marten in the GCF.
Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 21 of 32
                                              List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
188.       GDL           C        2.3.3.1        128           41       Do you mean outside of their „natural range‟, or outside of their „contiguous
                                                                        range‟? If a species is naturally occurring in the GCF, then isn‟t it inside its
                                                                        „natural range‟?
189.       GDL           C        2.3.3.1        129         11-24      You can also include a small component of the Pw/Pr in your conifer planting
                                                                        program, on sites that warrant it.
190.       GDL           C       2.3.3.2.2       160         23-29      Large white spruce can also act as super-canopy trees. It is unlikely in the GCF
                                                                        to have enough Pw or Pr to act as super-canopy trees; you will likely have to
                                                                        leave some of the white spruce as well.
191.       GDL           C          2.3.5        412         24-43      Which of these reasons is responsible for the reduction in lynx/hare habitat?
                                                                        Have you done any sensitivity analysis to determine if the marten constraints
                                                                        are responsible? Is it because of the difference in how the managed run
                                                                        harvests the forest vs. how the null run burns the forest?
192.       GDL           C        2.4.3.2        497         29-30      Were these „islands of non-suitable habitat‟ deferred? If not, then they need to
                                                                        be, if the overall core area (from the B-1 (a), etc. tables) did not achieve 75%
                                                                        suitable. If the cores are not rich in suitable habitat, all stands inside the cores
                                                                        are required to make up the core area. A mature poplar stand is much better
                                                                        habitat than a clearcut.
193.       GDL           C        2.4.4.1        553         28-29      Why do you think that fuelwood harvesting won‟t affect the residual stem
                                                                        targets? Are you planning on leaving extra residual for fuelwood harvesters?
194.       JMD           C        Available      413           31       I don‟t see the comparison in the Table or the Figure. I guess the 203,000
                                  Harvest                               drop refers to the volume projected in the last plan? Would the new plan‟s
                                    Area                                projected volume still be lower if all the reasons you mentioned (or more
                                                                        importantly the new or changed guidelines) were removed form constraining
                                                                        the selected alternative? How much of the drop between plans is the result of
                                                                        the outcome of the last plan (i.e. effects of substitution, changes to barren and
                                                                        scattered inventory, etc.)? The consequence of the drop should be discussed in
                                                                        the socio/econ impact discussion of the chosen alternative or in the rational
                                                                        sections (?).
195.        JS           C        2.3.3.1        128       Obj. A-9     It may be appropriate to reference the supporting document <Raptor
                                                                        Awareness and Habitat Management >. This document also details a strategy
                                                                        for stick nest protection.
196.        KE           C        General                               I was unable to find any section of the FMP in regards to RSA‟s. Being that the
                                                                        southern end of the GCF is a valuable remote tourism area may grant some
                                                                        considerations of RSA‟s.
197.        KE           C       Appendix      Map #8                   If the FMP was amendment to include contingency block F100 A-F, combined
                                     1                                  with block F091A-F, this could lead to a significant depletion in BMA area for
                                  (Part 2)                              BMA holder CP-30-23. Please review.
198.        KE           C       Appendix      Map #8                   At the end of Ossin Extension secondary road in Lougheed Township the road
                                     1                                  corridor is adjacent to a water channel flowing into Shiners Lake. This lake has
                                  (Part 2)                              two identified resource tourism outfitters. There may be a concern with access
                                                                        to Skiners Lake via the waterway (canoe/boat) if navigable. Road construction
                                                                        at the southern end of the proposed corridor may enhance accessibility to this
                                                                        lake. The proposed corridor ends well beyond the boundary of the contingency
                                                                        block F101C and may be more appropriate if the road ended at the block

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 22 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        boundary or rerouted more northern away from the water channel. Has a RSA
                                                                        been developed or proposed?
199.        KE           C       Appendix      Map #8                   The lake adjacent to the Southeast corner of block F103A has an identified
                                     1                                  tourism outfitter. I am wondering if a RSA has been developed with the
                                  (Part 2)                              outfitter. A 50m reserve has been identified on the map. I question if a 50
                                                                        meter reserve would be adequate to mitigate the visual from the lake. This
                                                                        would be slope, species etc. dependent.
200.        LJL          C       Supp doc        4.1a                   This map appears to be displaying wetlands as solid blue making them appear
                                    2                                   as lakes. Please review.
201.        LQ           C       Appendix                               Section 2.3 states, “Previous reserves identifies in previous plans were included
                                    6                                   in production reserve” but SFMM shows only a couple years‟ worth of reserves,
                                                                        and zero previous bypass. Reserves and bypass have been tracked by Spruce
                                                                        Falls for many years; the 2000 FMP projected 15% reserves and bypass
                                                                        including forested and B&S areas. They should be removed from the available
                                                                        landbase.
202.        LQ           C        FMP 10                                A high proportion of the upland FUs are not planted.
                                                                        Where does the Sb come from when Upland Conifer SF1 is renewed
                                                                        Extensively, i.e. no planting? It goes -
                                                                        from SF1 Prsn (@95yr: 117m3 Sb, 17 m3 Po, 159m3/ha total)
                                                                        to MW1 Extn (@95yr: 42 m3 Sb, 89 m3 Po, 152m3/ha total)
                                                                        and SF1 Extn (@95yr: 76 m3 Sb, 18 m3 Po, 116m3/ha total) with no planting
                                                                        at all? Some should go back to a lower-stocked condition
203.        LQ           C        FMP-10                                It would be very useful to show Spruce Fall‟s desired /expected regen results
                                                                        as well as the minimum. For example, the regen standard for the preferred
                                                                        SGR for natural regen of SB1 (SBHL-142-SB-Ext and SBU-142-SB-Ext) are for
                                                                        only 1000trees/ha (40% stocking) – is there a desired level that is higher? The
                                                                        natural regen yield curve is only 10% less than that for planting.
204.        LQ           C        2.3.3.1        124           10       Residual patches must be >6m tall and >30% stocked. How does B_S and
                                                                        NSR count as low quality residual?
205.        LQ           C        2.3.3.1        124           12       “….plans, [planned?] leave areas….”
206.        LQ           C       2.3.3.1 &       125           1        Table D-1 appears to include both mapped and unmapped residuals, but this
                                 Table D-                               discussion does not included unmapped (it is on p524 line 10). It would be
                                     1                                  appropriate to discuss past achievement of residual targets without full pre-
                                                 478                    mapping as rationale for expected future achievement of targets without full
                                                 524                    pre-mapping.
207.        LQ           C        2.3.3.1        133           1        Objective C-1: INTN2 silviculture intensity is not reflected in SFMM – there is
                                                                        no minimum and SFMM never does any.
                                                                        Neither in the Alt D (the Balanced) nor Alt E (the Intensive Forest Mangmt.
                                                                        Alternative)
208.        LQ           C        2.3.3.1        134           24       Is the goal of your silviculture program also to regenerate every ha as per the
                                                                        SFL to maintain the forest (well put on line 47-48), etc?
209.        LQ           C       2.3.3.2.2       157          1,15      Commercial Thinning – line 1 describes CT as cost-effective & silviculturally
                                                                        appropriate, yet line 15 describes the need to determine whether or not CT is
                                                                        effective, and p334 line4 refers to “research and development”. Has CT been
Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 23 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        already determined to be cost-effective & silviculturally appropriate?
210.        LQ           C       2.3.4.3.2       397           1        Figures 20 & 21 - To illuminate the explanation in the text of the ranking and
                                                                        selection of alternatives, these charts need to show the levels over time, not
                                                                        the average. The text (pages 401, 409, (p413 line 9)) that the levels at certain
                                                                        terms were a critical factor in selecting the chosen alternative, but the chart
                                                                        does not show it.
                                                                        It is not that clear why the benefits of the Intensive Silvic run could not have
                                                                        been blended with the benefits of the Balanced run – i.e. The Intensive run
                                                                        apparently had higher silviculture expenditures but greater wood supply. –
                                                                        especially given the shortfall in expected SPF volumes compared to past plans
                                                                        – and the point that “jobs are paramount”. More explanation would help.
211.        LQ           C                       404           42       There is not a house available in Hearst for $58,000 – according to the
                                                                        Demographic Profile this is the average income
212.        LQ           C                      157 or                  Should include in the plan text the treatment descriptions from Appendix 6 p11.
                                                 329                    Would be better to have the entire Appendix 6 in the plan text, as parts are
                                                                        essential for the reader.
213.        LQ           C        Table D-       488                     Field headings are unclear
                                     1                                   Total peninsular & insular fields are repeats of Target fields.
                                                                         Clearcut % is incorrectly calculated
                                                                         Show “other area” (non-forest, 3-6m tall forest) so all area is accounted
                                                                         Explain what „projected‟ is, and what a negative area signifies
214.        LQ           C       Table B-1       502                    Would be useful to include a column for Available forest to allow comparison to
                                                                        SFMM deferrals.
215.        LQ           C        2.4.4.1        524                    Again, many of these „constraints‟ are not the cause of difficulties in allocating
                                                                        oldest-first and are not a rationale for not doing it. Landbase withdrawals and
                                                                        deferrals have been accounted for in SFMM – SFMM knows about them and
                                                                        hasn‟t allocated those areas. Location is not a problem for a great proportion
                                                                        of the oldest stands, as there has already been harvest around or adjacent to
                                                                        them. If location or past harvest pattern or economics or operability preclude
                                                                        them from being allocated, then remove them from the available landbase.
216.      LQ, RL         C        FMP-10                                Why is Bf a fully acceptable species? In SFMM it gets a species weighting of 5,
                                                                        vs 9 for Sb, Sw, Pj, & Po. There should be a limit on it in future species
                                                                        composition.
                                                                        e.g. Pj1 INTN could be achieved without any Pj at all
                                                                        e.g. The SB1 Exten yield curve has almost no Bf, yet 100% Bf would satisfy the
                                                                        SGR.
                                                                        e.g. The Pw SGR (SFUPW-142-SF-Ext) could be satisfied without any Pw.

217.      LQ, RL         C        2.3.2.3        113           2        This implies that there is a flaw in the assumption that all „available is
                                                                        available‟. Model results are based upon inputs - you defined the model‟s initial
                                                                        available landbase on which the AHA is calculated. If access constraints are
                                                                        present but you have modeled based upon a fully available landbase then the
                                                                        potential for over-allocation exists. Please demonstrate that such has not
                                                                        occurred

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 24 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
218.      LQ, RL         C                       408           1        The social economic benefits are portrayed as though they are an increase
                                                                        from current levels, as though the wood supply is a new activity. Restructure
                                                                        this to portray in relation to current levels – there will be a decrease, not be an
                                                                        increase, in benefits since the wood supply to the 3rd party mills will decrease.
                                                                        Also, make it clear that SEIM uses average input-output data, and therefore
                                                                        results are useful only for comparing alternatives, not as a predictor of actual
                                                                        levels of benefits.
219.        MK           C        FMP-26         565                    The reconstruction of the Kukatush road will require some new water crossings
                                                                        – will these be temporary or permanent? Also, the most northern crossing is
                                                                        either in, or very close to, the Groundhog River Park.
220.     OP-ERM          C       Beardmo                                Ontario Parks recognizes OLL Land Use Strategy and Forest Accord
                                    re                                  commitments for the continued use of existing forest access roads, and the
                                   Road                                 strategic importantce of the Beardmore Road Crossing. These commitments
                                  Access                                will be maintained in Interim Management Statements or Park Management
                                 Strategy                               Plans.

                                                                        Nonetheless, Ontario Parks is disappointed that the substructure of the
                                                                        Beardmore Road Bridge remains in place. We deeply concerned that these
                                                                        structures will deteriorate before they are once again required for forest
                                                                        access. Ontario Parks requests that a binding agreement for the removal of
                                                                        these structures be completed prior to the approval of this plan. Ontario Parks
                                                                        suggest that, as part of the agreement, the structures should be monitored
                                                                        regularly for structural integrity, and the results must be shared with Ontario
                                                                        Parks. Should the structures begin to fail, they should be removed
                                                                        immediately. Otherwise, the structures should be removed by a predetermined
                                                                        date. The SFL will be expected to work closely with MNR/Ontario Parks in
                                                                        order to discourage access to the crossing location.

221.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                Request preferential placement of peninsular and insular residuals at or within
                                   OLL                                  60 m of boundary, except where wood supply or cost would be adversely
                                                                        affected. The greatest concern occurs where large openings are created
                                                                        adjacent to linear parks and conservation reserves. (Supports ecological
                                                                        integrity and corridor function of protected area. Edge-effects would be
                                                                        mitigated as much as possible without affecting wood supply/cost.)

                                                                        Request no new roads within 120 m of boundary sites except where no viable
                                                                        option exists. To be authorized by Area Supervisor after consultation with
                                                                        Ontario Parks or NER Natural Heritage Specialist. Roads which are no longer
                                                                        required should be returned to production forest. (Mitigate
                                                                        unplanned/unauthorized access as much as possible. The greatest concern
                                                                        occurs where potential access is created adjacent to remote waterways and
                                                                        lakes.)
222.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                AOC width should be defined for protection and release spraying adjacent to
                                   PPG                                  boundary (no drift into OLL sites). Over-flights should be avoided. Renewal

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 25 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        and tending should be permitted within AOC, but timing restrictions may be
                                                                        warranted. No pesticide/herbicide drift to enter park.
                                                                        Renewal adjacent to park is encouraged.
                                                                        Noise associated with these operations is a minor concern.

                                                                        Request no new roads within 120 m of boundary sites except where no viable
                                                                        option exists. To be authorized by Area Supervisor after consultation with
                                                                        Ontario Parks or NER Natural Heritage Specialist. Roads which are no longer
                                                                        required should be returned to production forest. Mitigate
                                                                        unplanned/unauthorized access as much as possible.

                                                                        Request timing restriction AOC; not associated with boundary, but tied to rec.
                                                                        features (esp. campsites) within park. Viewshed considerations for canoe route
                                                                        may be appropriate, not likely to be extensive given local topography. Mitigate
                                                                        noise which would adversely affect park user experience.
                                                                        Mitigate effects on viewshed, which would adversely affect park user
                                                                        experience.

223.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                Request preferential placement of peninsular and insular residuals at or within
                                   PPG                                  60 m of boundary, except where wood supply or cost would be adversely
                                                                        affected. The greatest concern occurs where large openings are created
                                                                        adjacent to the park boundary.

                                                                        (Supports ecological integrity and corridor function of protected area. Edge-
                                                                        effects would be mitigated as much as possible without affecting wood
                                                                        supply/cost.)
224.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                Some elements of AOC should be applied to Missinaibi Canoe Route (eg: timing
                                   PPM                                  restrictions), while others should remain tied to the boundary of Missinaibi PP
                                                                        and Additions. No harvesting or renewal restrictions required for Park and
                                                                        Additions boundaries, but rec values within. How will it be decided when/if
                                                                        viewscape values 'require' protection. Prescription should be applied to the real
                                                                        value of interest (canoe route vs. park boundary).

                                                                        No new roads within 120m of boundary sites except where no viable option
                                                                        exists. To be authorized by Area Supervisor after consultation with Ontario
                                                                        Parks or NER Natural Heritage Specialist. Roads which are no longer required
                                                                        should be returned to production forest, but timing restrictions may be
                                                                        warranted. Mitigate unplanned/unauthorized access as much as possible. The
                                                                        greatest concern occurs where potential access is created adjacent to remote
                                                                        waterways and lakes.

                                                                        Fix inconsistency between AOC table and sup docs with respect to release
                                                                        spraying and tending adjacent to PB. AOC width should be defined for
                                                                        protection and release spraying adjacent to boundary (no drift into park).
                                                                        Over-flights should be avoided. Renewal and tending should be permitted
Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 26 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                        within AOC, but timing restrictions may be warranted. No pesticide/herbicide
                                                                        drift to enter park.
                                                                        Renewal adjacent to park is encouraged.
                                                                        Noise associated with these operations is a minor concern.

225.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                No AOC table developed for Hicks-Oke Bog Provincial Park (Nature Reserve).
                                                                        Mapping shows this park as patent land.

                                                                        Boundary should receive similar treatment to other PA boundary prescriptions.
                                                                        No recreation features known within park, as it is a nature reserve.
226.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                Canoe Routes - Could not find sup. doc for CR AOC. Sup doc should explain
                                    CR                                  rationale for 30,50,90 (slope dependent?). Specify where skyline/viewscape is
                                                                        applicable (provincial parks and conservation reserves?).

                                                                        Ideally, timing restrictions are appropriate on canoe routes, particularly those
                                                                        within provincial parks and conservation reserves. Restrictions may be
                                                                        seasonal, or limited to weekdays and daylight hours where seasonal restrictions
                                                                        are not possible
227.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                Request preferential placement of peninsular and insular residuals at or within
                                   PPM                                  60 m of boundary, except where wood supply or cost would be adversely
                                                                        affected.

                                                                        Support ecological integrity and corridor function of protected area. Edge-
                                                                        effects would be mitigated as much as possible without affecting wood
                                                                        supply/cost.
228.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                Future considerations for managed hiking trails, campsites, and lookouts
                                                                        potentially identified and mapped during the life of this FMP. AOC prescriptions
                                                                        may have to be developed, but not presently required for plan approval.

                                                                        Lookouts on protected area trails may require viewscape consideration.

                                                                        Protected area campsites require AOC. PA bound usually provides sufficient
                                                                        reserve; noise is main concern. PA campsites need to be added to NRVIS.
                                                                        PA campsites require timing restrictions. Seasonal restrictions preferred, but
                                                                        where summer operations are limited, request evening restrictions on
                                                                        harvesting and possibly hauling during peak use period.

                                                                        Mitigate noise which would adversely affect protected area user experience.

                                                                        Mitigate effects on viewshed, which would adversely affect protected area user
                                                                        experience.
229.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                Future considerations: Over the life of this plan MNR may identify
                                                                        significant/sensitive ecological features which warrant development of AOC
                                                                        prescriptions. However, no AOC prescription is required for plan approval.

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 27 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #

                                                                        Where significant/sensitive ecological values within protected areas could be
                                                                        affected by commercial activities immediately outside the boundary, AOC or
                                                                        site-by-site prescriptions may be required to mitigate such effects.
230.     OP-ERM          C        FMP-17                                Note: No AOC table was developed for Rene Brunelle Provincial Park. A few
                                                                        optional areas (not contingency) occur adjacent to boundary. No AOC
                                                                        prescription is required for plan approval, however one will be required should
                                                                        these optional areas be harvested.

                                                                        Boundary should receive similar treatment to other PA boundary prescriptions.
                                                                        Campground and hiking trails may warrant seasonal timing restrictions.
                                                                        Noise associated with tending a potential, but temporary conflict.
231.        PB           C       Appendix                               Volumes left unharvested 1% seem low.
                                  Binder 6
                                   Model
                                 Input - v
232.        PB           C          Text         P129          30       Change incubation to germination
                                 Binder 1
233.        PB           C          Text         P129          20       Suggest include table comparing NER standard forest units & GCF forest units
                                 Binder 1
234.        PBr          C                       125         13-14   How will MNR monitor a target of 10 cubic meters per hectare of coarse woody
                                                                     debris?
235.        PBr          C                       409         21-22   As per comment # 2, Chapleau is not part of the “Assessment of
                                                                     Socioeconomic Impacts”. Please provide rational?
236.        RL           C        CT yield      SFMM                  Your current CT curves for 45, 55, 65 are showing an unproven
                                   curves                              undocumented response for Sb (e.g. CT_45 compared to Prsnt allows for
                                                                       small volume when 1st entered and then response provides higher future
                                                                       yields at peak) - please fix all CT curves as per training messaging (i.e. no
                                                                       gains, proportional removal at all ages). Also need to discuss use of A55 and
                                                                       A65 for CT – speak to Gord K (especially since early terms using A65 age
                                                                       class and SMA relies on this volume; you need to note this is plan text)
                                                                      Also may only charge tending costs if eligible for re-coup from Forestry Future
                                                                       Trust; or if you put full costs for all harvesting into model
237.        RL           C        Sup Doc                            Sup Doc Part 3 Binder 4 Section 13 Issues – please note in text that options
                                     3                               are not limited for caribou management as you have indicated. Current forest
                                                                     structure and disturbance patch regime has made it difficult to address all
                                                                     spatial considerations at this time; however, the broader regional caribou
                                                                     habitat management direction currently being developed will provide future
                                                                     guidance on connectivity and landscape management for woodland caribou on
                                                                     the GCF.
238.        RL           C       Appendix                             Section 2.5 pg 10 – since this is true (persistent) B&S represented in SFMM
                                    6                                  then Non-Forest to Forest rates of return are too fast (very large portions
                                                                       returning by in 1 term). Furthermore coming back to an A15 age class is not
                                                                       acceptable. Please discuss with specialist

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 28 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #       Alteration                                                                              Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                         Section 3.1.1.3 – you are using accumulating reserves. Please correct text.
                                                                          You will also need to discuss rationale and provide supporting documentation
                                                                          for the accumulating reserves used (NDPEin, NDPEpen, AbRes, ByPass)
                                                                         Section 5 – identify use of OWHAM or other tool that was used to develop
                                                                          spatial blocks so area could be deferred in SFMM
                                                                         Section 5.1.4. – in training the message was clear that all species were to be
                                                                          weighted equally. Can not use weighting to offset a utilization issue. Please
                                                                          discuss with Forest Industry Specialist
                                                                         Section 5.2 – last sentence in Po/Bw needs re-structuring; if have
                                                                          grass/meadow B&S in MW2 why is this not reflected in natural succession as
                                                                          well?
                                                                         Section 5.2.1 – harvest area for Bw can decrease by 30%. Please include
                                                                         Section 5.2.3 – there are no BNV for this
                                                                         Section 5.3.1.1.1 – correct MU name; and how/what was done with habitat?
                                                                         Section 5.3.2.1 – direction was also given to contact SAR biologist to assist in
                                                                          large scale landscape considerations so that large contiguous future blocks
                                                                          could be set up when the regional caribou habitat direction is available
                                                                         Section 5.4 – wildlife habitat for selected species is to be maintained at or
                                                                          above a point that represents 80% of the lowest term by species from the
                                                                          null run. Please correct your statement
                                                                     
239.        RL           C       2.2.2.3.4        81           35        Should provide an example species or two. Also this should be „area‟ sensitive
                                                                         species
240.        RL           C        2.3.2.3        113          40         Is not a disadvantage rather than an advantage?
241.        RL           C        2.3.3.1        125         16-18       Your modelling of 1% growing stock left unharvested across all FUs equally is
                                                                         an under-estimate of amount needed to maintain target of 25 trees/ha (e.g.
                                                                         Pj1 at peak of yield at A95 would mean 1.23 m3/ha left, upland conifer at A105
                                                                         1.25 m3/ha, PO1 at A95 1.26m3, etc.). Please fix or discuss with specialist
242.        RL           C        2.3.3.1        133           21        Your objective should identify that this new free-growing forest must meet all
                                                                         desired benefits
243.        RL           C        2.3.3.1        134           3         Would suggest that aerial seeding is not natural regen technique. You may
                                                                         wish to separate it from truer natural techniques like CLAAG
244.        RL           C        2.3.3.1        136           32        Current wording suggests you will minimize any negative impacts - suggest
                                                                         there will be times when this is not feasible. Perhaps a slight re-wording
                                                                         „Attempt to minimize…‟.
245.        RL           C          2.3.5        413           4         Should have some text providing rationale regarding why you are rejecting the
                                                                         others as well
246.        RL           C        FMP 15         416                     Graphs displayed for projected harvest area and volume are done over the 160
                                  graphs                                 year period not per plan term shown in FMP 15
247.      RL, LQ         C        2.3.3.1        131           1         Objective B-2 Target requires a numerical target (i.e. FMP-12 #). This is
                                                                         important since this target, like the SPF target is not achieved by the selected
                                                                         management alternative.
248.      RL, LQ         C                       511           33        Age-class substitution:
                                                                         You have considerable age class substitution occurring, particularly in a couple

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 29 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                    of key FUs. This combined with your 247 run and FMP tables 15, 20 &
                                                                    21requires some further explanation/exploration. Please discuss with Area
                                                                    Forester & Regional Specialists
249.      RL, MK         C       2.3.4.3.2       401          Gen   Was a Non-declining yield calculated and used in this plan? If so, what is it,
                                                                    and how was it calculated? If not, why not?
250.        TM           C        General                           As per MNR Land Use Direction, tourism is promoted as one of the primary
                                                                    land-uses in the Ossin Twp. area and is also subject to provisions of the District
                                                                    Fisheries Management Plan. Policy dictates that resource plans provide for the
                                                                    protection of these tourism values. Resource management plans need to be
                                                                    developed in consideration of these values and adjacent lands managed to
                                                                    maintain the remote quality of lakes with commercial tourism
                                                                    establishments. I would suggest the planning team ensure these tourist
                                                                    operators have been specifically approach regarding pending operations and
                                                                    given the opportunity to participate in RSA agreements. As a planning team, I
                                                                    would suggest we try to negotiate an appropriate reserve around all lakes with
                                                                    tourism establishments, implement a timing restriction and no road zone of an
                                                                    appropriate distance. At the very least, look at where access has been
                                                                    improved and consider management options such as culvert removal, road
                                                                    restrictions, no road zones, etc. Please refer to the Crown Land Use Atlas
                                                                    Policy Report G1770 for additional policy direction.
251.        LQ           C                        92          13    What is meant by “based on the 2000 FMP?” Also, some words are missing.
252.        LQ           C                       440          12    It is unclear what is being alluded to.
253.        LQ           C                       535           4    Should be “other conifer” instead of “hardwood”
254.        LQ           C        FMP-25         559                Reconcile the different proportion of large vs small planting stock in these
                                  Table 23                          tables
255.      LQ, RL         C                       434          25    You state the Non-Marketable is considered unfeasible to harvest – only a small
                                                                    part of it has been historically harvested. Amendment #3 to the 2000 FMP (in
                                                                    which Non-Marketable was part of the Lowland Transition (Non) FU) it was
                                                                    identified that „...it was discovered that a greater percentage of this area was
                                                                    been incorporated into reserve and bypass than what was modeled for. This
                                                                    difference was recognized during forest modeling, and it was assumed that
                                                                    only 30% of the available harvest area in this forest unit would yield a harvest
                                                                    volume‟. Despite this knowledge, it is left in the Available landbase (as Exten
                                                                    or Exten2) & it constitutes 66,000 ha without which your SMA does not solve.
                                                                    Thus given your past experience with this area suggests either not all of this
                                                                    area should be available or as a minimum a higher accumulating reserve total
                                                                    needs to be reflected in model. Please discuss with Area Forester & Specialist
256.      RL, LQ         C         SFMM                            Need to discuss the following:
                                   model
                                   inputs                                Initial Landbase: BW1 Inten & PO1Inten should be put in a conifer FU (or
                                                                          describe it in the FU description section) because 1) the Bw and Po were not
                                 (Appendi                                 the goal of the Inten treatment; 2) there is 0% Bw in BW1 Inten; only 30%
                                   x 6)                                   Po in PO1 Inten; and 3) it is only used for the current FRI; there is no
                                                                          succession to it

Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 30 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #

                                                                         Natural Disturbance Rates – good discussion on information sources used for
                                                                          null rates; fire suppression rates however are not realistic (e.g. Po & Bw
                                                                          having same rate as LC1

                                                                         Nat Disturbance Succession proportions: please supply rationale (e.g. MW2
                                                                          has >30% Po in it and you suggest only 3% of MW2 would move to Po but
                                                                          17% would move to SP1? Please explain). While you state conifer dominated
                                                                          stands return to same post disturbance, those conifer dominated mixedwoods
                                                                          are climax stands, thus would return more to a hardwood dominated
                                                                          condition after initial disturbance (you stated similar based upon post-harvest
                                                                          experience – Appendix 6 section 5.2).

                                                                         Natural Succession:
                                                                         As per previous pre-draft reviews there needs more explanation of how
                                                                          natural succession rules were designed (specifically ages at which stands
                                                                          succeed to). Some generic examples include:
                                                                         In every FU, PRSNT always succeeds to PRSNT. If an MW2 or PO1 were left
                                                                          to age naturally, a great deal would go to brush, and the stocking would not
                                                                          be nearly that of the original stand. The same would occur to a lesser extent
                                                                          to other FU‟s, so either have a lower-yield EXTEN or have some succeed to
                                                                          non-forest brush
                                                                         The rules bring SB1 back at ages 45 to 75, so that after many terms,
                                                                          naturally succeeded areas achieve the same peak volumes as the „present‟
                                                                          forest. But once a stand‟s volume begins to decline with age and it has lost
                                                                          most of its peak volume, there is nothing to bring it all the way back up to
                                                                          peak volume as shown in the yield curve
                                                                         Also, the MW2 Prsn2 A175 (42 m3/ha) is made to succeed to SP1 Prsn A95
                                                                          (159 m3/ha). How?
                                                                         The rules bring over-mature low-volume Exten2 areas back to ages younger
                                                                          than the peak of the yield curve

                                                                         Stumpage Values: in text you state $4.50 and $0.50; in model you have
                                                                          $4.86 and $0.68. Correct one or the other.

                                                                         Volumes Left Unharvested – see earlier alteration around 1%

                                                                         Areas Reserved From Harvesting – need to display the math behind the
                                                                          reserve percentages to be left for NDPEG and accompanying rationale; also
                                                                          past ROPFO show an average by-pass of 15% while you have only 6-8%.

                                                                         Po wood supply targets: several places in plan text (page 92, 332, 401) and
                                                                          FMP 12 Po targets are noted differently e.g.
                                                                         Alt C text: “the current hardwood commitments” & is 450,000 m3/yr in
                                                                          SFMM
Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 31 of 32
                                             List of Alterations for the Draft 2005 Gordon Cosens Forest Management Plan
Source: PBr = Paul Bernier; BB = Bryce Bertrand; LL = Lynn Landriault; KE = Kirk Ellis; TM = Tim Mutter; BR = Bob Robinson; PB = Pat Burrough; DAK = Dan Kott; JS = John Sadowsky; MC = Mich Cloutier; DLb = Dave Barbour
GK = Gordon Kayahara; LQ = Lauren Quist; RL = Rodger Leith; JMD = Jim Duncan; GDL = Greg Lucking; OP-ERM = Ontario Parks; Ed Morris; MK = Mac Kilgour; BF = Brain Fox
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       Section       Pg #        Line #      Alteration                                                                               Completed or explanation of                        New
 #                                /Table #                                                                                                                       alteration                                         Pg #
                                                                         Alt C & Alt D, as per FMP-12 text states 330,000 m3/yr Po – is PoBw meant?
                                                                         Alt D, SFMM actual: 365,000 m3/yr
                                                                         Socioec section (p92): reader must add them up – approx 380,000 m3/yr
                                                                          PoBw.
                                                                         Base Case (Alt D) in Analysis Pkg, Appendix 6 p14: 340,000 m3/yr – “target
                                                                          based on 2000-2020 FMP levels”
                                                                         Pg 401 “The objective is to supply a minimum of 382,000 m3/yr of hardwood
                                                                          (aspen & birch)”
                                                                         Pg 555: 340,420m3/yr aspen; Table 24: 41,100m3/yr Bw
                                                                    -     What are the Po & Bw targets? Please ensure reconciliation with SFMM runs
                                                                          and tables

                                                                         Timber Value Weighting – all species should be equal as per training
                                                                          messages

                                                                         Forest Renewal Limits – OK, just needs to be better links to plan text
                                                                          objectives




Gordon Cosens Forest Draft 2005-2025 FMP                                                                  6/17/2009                                                                                                 32 of 32

				
DOCUMENT INFO