1 Mazinaw-Lanark Forest 2004-2009 Independent Forest Audit Action Plan Status Report Signature Page Prepared by: Tom Richardson General Manager Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. Signed: November 18, 2014 Craig Dodds Resources Operations Supervisor MNRF Bancroft District Signed: December 8, 2014 Submitted by: Vincent Ewing District Manager MNRF Bancroft District Signed: December 2, 2014 Approved by: Jane Ireland Regional Director MNRF Southern Region Signed: March 16, 2015
Prepared by Tom Richardson GM, MLFI & Craig Dodds, OMNRF Bancroft An independent audit of forest management was carried out on the Mazinaw-Lanark Forest (MLF) covering the period from April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2009. The final audit report was received May 25, 2010. The MLF was created in 2002 with the signing of Sustainable Forest License (SFL) #542621.
The audit confirmed that the MLF is being managed sustainably. Technical aspects of forest management are completed in a highly satisfactory manner. Communication between the various stakeholders on the forest is very strong and relations are professional, positive and progressive. MLFI is satisfactorily meeting all of the terms and conditions of the SFL. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNR/OMNRF/MNRF) is meeting its overall responsibilities associated with its role in managing this forest. The audit team confirmed that management of the MLF was in compliance with the legislation, policy, and regulations that were in effect during the 2004-2009 audit term. The audit team recommended that the term of the SFL be extended for an additional five years.
Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Management Inc. (MLFI) managed the MLF under two overlapping 20-year forest management plans (the first commencing April 1, 2001 and the second April 1, 2006) with the OMNRF. The audit examined MLFI’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the SFL agreement and reviewed OMNRF’s performance in meeting its obligations on the MLF. The audit report identified 15 recommendations aimed at improving the management and administration of the MLF.
Recommendations 3, 7 and 9 are directed to corporate/regional OMNRF and are included in the 2009 Provincial Action Plan.
This Action Plan Status Report for the Independent Audit of Forest Management on the Mazinaw-Lanark Forest for the Period 2004 to 2009 is being submitted by Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. and OMNRF Bancroft District due November 27th, 2013.
3
Recommendations to MLFI and the OMNRF Districts Recommendation 1
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and MLFI shall meet regularly (minimum
once a year) with the Algonquin communities to discuss opportunities for more
economic benefits on the MLF.
Actions Required:
1. OMNRF District, through the Liaison Specialist, will maintain contact with the Algonquin communities to provide an on-going opportunity for benefits discussions. Additionally, the District will continue to encourage and support involvement in forest management activities through the Local Citizens Committees and the Forest Management Planning Teams to increase awareness of opportunities. The Liaison Specialist will work to arrange a joint meeting to discuss opportunities on an annual basis.
Organization & position responsible:
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry: Resource Liaison Specialist.
Deadline date:
March 15, 2012 and on-going on an annual basis.
Method of tracking progress:
Meeting minutes will be recorded and distributed and follow up action items will be
tracked in the minutes. Other discussions/actions outside of the meetings will be
file noted and added to the minutes as updates in subsequent meetings.
STATUS
Ongoing: MNRF staff under the leadership of the Resource Liaison Specialist met
with the Sharbot Lake Algonquins several times in the summer of 2010 and fall of
2010. The purpose of the meetings was to explore opportunities for participation in
the economic benefits associated with forestry operation in the M-L forest. In the
fall of 2010, MNRF hired a meeting facilitator to ensure effective participation and
commitment to action. These discussions have not continued due to active
engagement of the Sharbot Lake Algonquins in the Land Claim Negotiations.
However, through other land claim processes, forestry is being discussed as a part
of the Land Claim Negotiations with Algonquin Communities (High level Forest
Working Group). The MNRF District Managers (Pembroke, Bancroft, and North
Bay) are in active discussions within that working group.
4
Future Tracking:
There is a need for achieving more equal participation by Aboriginal people in
economic benefits provided through forest management activities. OMNRF,
through the Resource Liaison Specialist, will continue to send an annual meeting
invitation, via email or letter, to the Algonquin communities and the SFL to discuss
potential economic opportunities. This will be done in the spring of each year.
Organization and Position Responsible:
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Resource Liaison Specialist.
Recommendation 2
OMNR, with the participation of MLFI, shall implement the Condition #34 Toolkit on
the MLF to assist in documenting current involvement in the forest sector economy
as well as defining future objectives and associated strategies.
Actions Required:
1. OMNRF District, through the Resource Liaison Specialist and with the co-operation of MLFI and the Aboriginal communities, will document current forest sector economy involvement and define objectives and strategies as per the Condition 34 Toolkit.
Organization & position responsible:
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Resource Liaison Specialist.
Deadline date:
March 15, 2012.
Method of tracking progress:
Condition 34 Toolkit templates.
STATUS
Ongoing: In 2013, MNRF secured financial aid for training for Algonquin First
Nations in the Sharbot Lake and Ardoch areas. Some of this funding has been
transferred to the SFL and MLFI will coordinate the training program. This project
will assist in meeting C-34 objectives by developing forest sector skills and
expertise, and building capacity to participate in local economic benefits from forest
management activities. Three skill types are targeted:
a. Scaling (Measurement of Logs) – provide training to complete certification for those who have completed the scaling licence course and/or prepare for licence course
5
b. Tree Marking – provide on-the-job training for participants who have successfully completed the tree marking course, and meet requirements to qualify for contracts
c. Tending – release of desirable regeneration; requires chainsaw operators certification training leading to on-the-job training. One or more participants will be required to get a First Aid certificate. The intent is to qualify Algonquin contractors for future tending projects.
Future Tracking:
Training records describing the type of training and number of aboriginal
participants will be provided by the SFL to the Resource Liaison Specialist, by the
end of the fiscal years where training funding is made available.
Organization and Position Responsible: MLFI - General Manager & Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Resource Liaison Specialist.
Recommendation 4
OMNR should inspect bridges that have been assigned as their responsibility and ensure all environmental requirements are met. Actions Required:
1. Complete inspections: OMNRF Southern Region has bridge inspection as the top priority project for 2010/11. Ten bridges within the Bancroft District have been contracted for a complete engineer’s inspection. Bridges that are the responsibility of the Crown will be added to an inventory for inspection.
2. Prepare reports: Reports will be prepared and submitted with any recommended actions to be taken to achieve compliance with environmental requirements.
3. Take actions necessary: Any actions required for environmental
compliance will be scheduled and completed. OMNRF compliance staff will continue to receive and update bridge inspection training as available.
Organization and Position Responsible: OMNRF, Bancroft Senior Compliance Technician. Deadline date:
1-3. March 31, 2012.
6
Method of tracking progress: 1-3. Completed reports and summary of actions taken.
STATUS
1. Complete: The engineer consulting firm, Exp Services Inc., submitted report on structural inspections for 7 structures in the Bancroft District. Report was submitted on August 29, 2011.
2. Complete: After the receipt of the report of August 29, 2011 the following actions were taken:
a. 3 bridges (ID # 3020, 70700 and 10701) were replaced. b. Twin culverts (ID # 1357) were replaced with a bridge. c. Two structures (ID # 586 and 10581) were determined not to be MNRF’s
responsibility d. Dobbie Lake bridge inspected and signage installed.
3. Complete/Ongoing: Crown Land Bridge Guidelines and Inspection Training
occurred in the Bancroft District in Bancroft on June 6-7, 2012. The training was attended by MNRF and SFL staff. MNRF has mapped all known water crossings including bridges and identified those considered a risk to public safety. Field inspection of this inventory is ongoing and the structures status is being upgraded as inspections occur. Information is also being compiled to assess bridges that will be priority for engineer inspection. Further inspections are scheduled within the Mazinaw-Lanark forest.
Future Tracking
Inspection of remaining water crossing is scheduled in association with other activities being carried out on the forest, and the water crossing inventory is being updated as this information flows in.
Organization and Position Responsible: 3. OMNRF, Bancroft Senior Compliance Technician.
Recommendation 5
MLFI, with the assistance of district OMNR staff, should review their operations manual requirements to ensure that information about sensitive values is provided only to those required to know for implementation purposes. Actions Required:
1. MLFI to develop protocols, in consultation with OMNRF, to address: communications (including details of sensitive value to be protected),
7
layout of Areas of Concern, distribution of information. Organization and Position Responsible:
Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. General
Manager
Deadline date:
March 31, 2012. Method of tracking progress:
Completed protocol protocols.
STATUS
Complete:
Protocol on sensitive values documented by MLFI in March 2012 and reviewed
internally in September 2013
Layout of the AOC is completed as part of the tree marking contract and audited prior to start of harvest operations
General Manager reviewed with MLFI staff process to follow and “who” needs to know to balance confidentiality, operational considerations, and due diligence
Complete; Protocol followed as part of regular operations
Recommendation 6
OMNR needs to re-examine, with MLFI, the prescriptions for sensitive values and evaluate alternative prescriptions (which may still be under development) that will comply with the intent of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This should include consideration of the risk to conservation of the sensitive values that occurs through planning procedures that may inadvertently make sites known.
Actions Required:
1. All Area of Concern prescriptions will be evaluated through a joint OMNRF
and Industry task team involving the three Forest Management Units in the Bancroft and Pembroke Districts. This task team will provide consistent direction to incorporate re-evaluated prescriptions for sensitive values that comply with the intent of the ESA into the 2011-21. Forest Management Plans, which also include consideration of the risk to sensitive sites becoming known.
8
2. District OMNRF and MLFI will jointly propose an FMP amendment, which will comply with the ESA, to allow for hauling along forest access routes in Blanding’s turtle habitat. Conditions in the amendment may include driver awareness training, speed limits, mandatory reporting of sightings and other methods as agreed to.
3. District OMNRF will support MLFI’s ESA harm/harass permit application
to allow site preparation activities in some Blanding’s turtle habitat, under the “net benefit” category.
4. District OMNRF and MLFI will jointly propose an FMP amendment to
allow landings to be constructed on a case-by-case basis within the Blanding’s turtle habitat.
Organization and Position Responsible:
OMNRF Bancroft Planning Biologist and MLFI General Manager Deadline date:
March 31, 2012 and ongoing re-evaluations. Method of tracking progress:
Task Team meeting minutes and completed prescriptions incorporated into Forest Management Plans.
STATUS
1. Complete: A task team was formed to develop AOC prescriptions with
participation of MNRF and industry staff for the Bancroft Minden, Mazinaw-Lanark, and Ottawa Valley FMUs. This team developed consistent prescriptions to be incorporated into the 2011 Forest Management Plans.
2. Complete: An internal MNRF regional workshop was held on Feb 05-06, 2013
to explore flexibility options and to promote regional consistency in application of the Blanding’s Turtle AOC. The Southern Region FMP Blanding’s Turtle Area of Concern Application protocol was developed as a result of these discussions. This Protocol provides clarifications for the implementation if the S&S Guide provision for hauling on forestry access roads. For the purpose of forest management planning in Southern Region, the forest industry is the primary user of a road only when access is restricted to the general public or the road is categorized as operational in the FMP.
3. Partially completed: MNRF initially indicated they would support a MLFI ESA
permit request for silvicultural projects. After internal review, MNRF determined the species information was inadequate to proceed with the authorization of a
9
permit. MNRF embarked on two year project to collect scientific data in support of a revision of the AOC. This project has provided information needed to explore opportunities to improve flexibility, and make the AOC more biologically relevant to Blanding’s Turtle. The field work was completed in 2013 and a scientific paper is being prepared with the collected data.
Future Tracking:
Scientific paper published: spring 2014 and provided for consideration for the next review of the Stand and Site Guide.
Organization and Position Responsible:
OMNRF, Species at Risk Biologist and MLFI General Manager
4. Partially completed: In a regional MNRF workshop held on Feb 05-06, 2013
MNRF discussed the flexibility within the S&S guide to allow landings to be constructed in Blanding’s turtle habitat. The determination was made that the standards from the S&S Guide regarding landings are to be implemented with no deviances. As result, MNRF is in the process of preparing an amendment to bring the AOC for Blanding’s Turtles in agreement with the provisions of the S&S Guide. MLFI is opposed to further restrictions (as it decreases operational flexibility and ability of licensees to work) and will request a review of options with senior MNRF management. The restriction on landings has had serious consequences by: making some blocks either partially or wholly inoperable, or increasing skidding distances or road construction
Organization and Position Responsible:
OMNRF, Planning & Information supervisor and planning biologist
Future Tracking:
An amendment to the Mazinaw-Lanark Forest 2011-2021 FMP to be submitted by September 30, 2014.
Recommendation 8
MLFI shall enter into discussions with MFMC for the purpose of considering refinements to the harvest allocation process that will promote greater efficiency and minimize apportioning single harvest blocks into smaller parcels.
Actions Required:
10
1. MLFI will discuss the harvest allocation process with Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Management Company (MFMC) and determine revisions to allocation principles to promote greater efficiency and minimize block splitting in the new FMP.
2. Determine block allocation for each MFMC licensee. Rationale for any
split blocks will be documented. Organization & position responsible:
1 and 2 - Mazinaw-Lanark Forest Inc. General Manager. Deadline date:
1. Nov 30, 2011.
2. March 31, 2012.
Method of tracking progress:
1. Minutes of Meeting and documentation of principles.
2. Documentation of block allocations and rationale for any split blocks in MLFI
licensing proposals to OMNRF.
STATUS
Completed:
Summer 2010 - general manager reviewed the audit recommendation with MFMC directors
October, 2010 – written direction to MFMC shareholders to avoid block splitting as much as possible
October 2010 to January 2011 general manager discussed with MFMC directors principles to be followed during allocation/licencing process
April 2011 - Principles documented by General Manager; principles applied and rationale documented for any proposals to split blocks.
September 2013 – General Manager reviewed principles with MFMC directors for final agreement. Block splitting has been reduced substantially.
Recommendation 10
District OMNR should petition the authors of the Madawaska Highlands Land Use plan to establish a more realistic red oak renewal objective.
11
Actions Required:
1. OMNRF will enter into discussions with Madawaska Highlands Land Use
Plan (MHLUP) committee during MHLUP Plan review period to incorporate stand and site guide recommendations with the intent to establish a more realistic red oak renewal objective.
Organization & position responsible:
OMNRF Bancroft Forester and OMNRF PIM Supervisor. Deadline date:
Initiate discussion by December 1, 2011. Completion dependent upon MHLUP planning schedule. Method of tracking progress:
Incorporation of OMNRF proposals into new MHLUP.
STATUS
Completed:
A requirement to review the sustainability targets, specifically for red oak, was included in the Terms of Reference for the MHLUP 10 year Review. This was discussed with the Madawaska Highland Standing Advisory Committee in the meeting of April 20, 2009, the kick off meeting for the 10 year plan review of the Madawaska Highlands Land Use Plan. Subsequently, the red oak targets issue was discussed in several Madawaska Highland Standing Advisory Committee (MHSAC) meetings such as Nov 23, 2009; March 22, 2010; May 11, 2010; Dec 14, 2011 and Feb 05, 2013. The MNRF’s recommendation was to harmonize forest cover objectives in the MHLUP with objectives in the forest management plans by using the terminology and targets form the Forest Management Guide for Great-Lakes- St. Lawrence Landscapes Guide (Landscape guide). This approach guaranteed that forest cover objectives development followed the best science available using the Simulated Ranges of Natural Variation (SRNV). This recommendation has been considered by the MHSAC and recommendations for red oak targets are being finalized. Implementation is dependent upon further internal review, consultation with stakeholders and Aboriginal communities, and approval of the revised MHLUP.
Recommendation 11
MLFI shall examine if there are additional opportunities for chemical tending to increase the effectiveness of regenerating high risk and high investment areas.
12
Actions Required:
1. MLFI will review silviculture operations, silviculture risk level and
possibility of chemical tending on specific sites. When review is completed, a ranked list will be compiled of areas available for chemical tending to increase regeneration.
Organization & position responsible:
MLFI Silvicultural Forester. Deadline date:
Initiate review by March 31, 2012. Ongoing.
Method of tracking progress:
Results of initial review. Records of where and when additional chemical tending has been used to increase effectiveness of regenerating high risk and high investment areas. Records of silvicultural areas and treatment methods will be reported in Annual Reports.
STATUS
Completed:
Prior to harvest MLFI performs initial assessments of silvicultural risk level on each site during the development of site specific Forest Operations Prescription. Highly competitive sites are identified as a flag for future treatment that may include chemicals.
Tending options, including chemical treatment, are reviewed on individual sites after assessing the status of regeneration, competition level, site conditions, logistics etc. Options are balanced with the requirements of FSC certification. Where chemical tending is selected as the best option, a site specific FOP is prepared and includes documented analysis of alternatives.
This process represents the “review of silvicultural operations, silvicultural risk level and possibility of chemical tending on specific sites” and corresponds with the concept of a “ranked list of areas available for chemical tending”.
Note: A separate, one time, comprehensive review of all potential future tending sites with a separate ranked list of areas available for chemical tending, would not be as effective.
Note: Chemical tending poses a risk of damage to desirable regeneration/crop trees (Note: The Action Plan states that MLFI will “Records of silvicultural areas and treatment methods will be reported in Annual Reports”.
13
Recommendation 12
MLFI must verify that operators have staff that are aware of the requirements of the operations manual prior to the start of operations on each block.
Actions Required:
1. Provide training at scheduled operator workshops.
2. Verify that licensees and/or foreman (and operators) are aware of
operations manual requirements prior to operations through operations start-up reviews with licensee and/or foreman and operators.
3. Carry out compliance monitoring to ensure that operators are following
operations manual requirements. Organization & position responsible:
1., 2. and 3. MLFI Senior Compliance
Tech. Deadline date:
1., 2. and 3. March 31, 2012.
Method of tracking progress:
1. Attendance records at operator workshops. 2. Documented in Forest Operation Inspection Program (FOIP) inspection reports. 3. Documented in FOIP inspection reports.
STATUS
1. Complete: training at operator's workshops completed (April 20,2010; Apr 28,
2011; May 15, 2012; Apr 9, 2013)
2. Complete/ongoing: requirements and standards in operations manual reviewed Start-up/tailgate review of the FOP and operation will be done by the MLFI compliance tech with the overlapping licensee (includes any available licensee staff) prior to or within the first week of operations. (Note: A phone review may be done if the onsite review cannot be arranged). This is done under direction of the General Manager. Each compliance tech records activities in notes.
3. Complete/ongoing: Both the SFL and MNRF undertake inspections as per the annual component of the compliance strategy approved in the current AWS and the District Annual Compliance Plan.
14
Recommendation 13
MLFI shall amend its 2006-2011 Compliance Plan Strategy to indicate that the General Manager shall be responsible for reviewing and approving all compliance monitoring reports filed by company compliance inspectors.
Actions Required:
1. Procedure FOR 07 03 05 in the Forest Compliance Handbook provides direction on report approval processes and specifies that SFL holders are to “…determine their individual report approval process (even if that is to be the inspector who completed the report)…” In the context of this recommendation, MLFI will review the current approach to approving compliance inspection reports in the Forest Operations Information Program (FOIP) and will determine a report approval process that will ensure that quality inspection reports are being submitted to the Forest Operations Inspection Program, consistent with the direction in the Forest Compliance Handbook. If any changes to the current approach to approving compliance inspection reports (i.e. the inspector who completes the inspection report also approves the inspection report) are identified, the appropriate compliance planning components in the Forest Management Plan or Annual Work Schedule will be amended/revised accordingly.
Organization and Position Responsible:
MLFI General Manager.
Deadline Date:
November 30, 2011.
Method of Tracking Progress
Documentation of review. Amendment to FMP or Compliance Plan or revision to AWS if required. Updated MLFI compliance policy
STATUS
Complete:
General Manager reviewed with MLFI compliance staff company policy on
approval of compliance inspections in 2010
Inspection sign-off responsibilities were documented in the 2011 FMP (P 278-279).
General Manager updated company Compliance Inspection Reporting Procedure in 2010 and 2013. Approval guidelines are as follows:
15
o The General Manager will normally approve all reports with an
operational issue o All other reports will be reviewed either before or immediately after report
submission/approval. No changes are required to the 2011 FMP.
Recommendation 14
OMNR Bancroft shall utilise the full remedial provisions of the Forest Compliance Handbook, including the suspension and/or cancellation of harvest licenses, or consider applying other innovative remedies, where orders and/or monetary penalties are not resulting in corrective actions from operators with consistently poor compliance records. OMNR and MLFI shall ensure all licensees are aware of their obligations to supervise operations and ensure that all operators are provided with the most up-to-date maps and information. MLFI shall also utilize the provisions available under the Unanimous Shareholders Agreement to induce better compliance performance.
Actions Required:
1. Procedure FOR 07 06 03 in the Forest Compliance Handbook specifies
how remedies are to be determined and applied. OMNRF will review each instance of Not In Compliance and determine remedy and enforcement response as directed by the Handbook. The compliance history of the licensee will be carefully considered as one of the six elements in assessing which enforcement actions may be undertaken and which remedies are to be applied for each particular situation with the objective of improving compliance performance and values protection.
2. OMNRF and MLFI will hold meetings with licensees prior to start-up and
ensure that all licensees are aware of their obligations to supervise operations and provide all operators with the most up to date maps and information prior to start-up.
3. MLFI will review with licensees, MLFI requirements under the Unanimous
Shareholders Agreement where necessary (e.g. multiple compliance issues.).
Organization & position responsible:
1. OMNRF Senior Compliance Tech. 2. OMNRF Senior Compliance Tech and MLFI General Manager. 3. MLFI General Manager. Deadline date:
1, 2, and 3. March 31, 2012.
16
Method of tracking progress:
1. Documentation will be recorded through FOIP reports which should have
appended to them the results of the Issue Management process used in each case of Not in Compliance as well as the documentation associated with how the remedy was determined as per FOR 07 06 03.
2. Documentation of meetings held and attendance of licensees recorded. 3. Record of discussions with licensees
STATUS
1. Complete/Ongoing: MNRF follows the procedures outlined in FOR 07.06.03 as outlined in the Forest Compliance Handbook. The District Compliance Review Committee meets to “conduct a thorough review of the incident before recommending a remedy. The frequency, extent and nature of the non-compliance, the circumstances of its occurrence in relation to the characteristics of the operation itself, and the characteristics of the suspected or confirmed offender should provide the basis for determination of the remedy.”(Forest Compliance handbook FOR07 06 03). These meetings and the justification for remedy decisions is documented in the minutes of the compliance issue review document and when appropriate in the determination section of the Not In Compliance FOIP report. An issue management session was held in Pembroke March 6, 2013 by the provincial compliance lead to help Districts determine remedies more consistently across the region.
2. Complete: The SFL developed a pre-operation checklist (checklist is comprised of the FOP requirements and details maintained in compliance tech notes) that includes a list of items that need to be reviewed with the licensees at the start-up of each block. MNRF attended the SFL Spring Training and Operators workshop May 15, 2012 and April 9 2013 and were a part of the discussions that took place at these meetings.
3. Complete/ongoing: The General Manager records meeting notes regarding any pertinent discussions with licensees. Ongoing process started prior to audit. Note: Most compliance issues do not require discussion of shareholders agreement.
Future tracking: 1. The minutes of the District Compliance Review Committee meetings and FOIP
reports.
Organization and Position Responsible: 1. OMNRF Senior Compliance Tech. 2. MLFI General Manager
17
Recommendation 15
MLFI shall ensure that adequate resources are available to align more closely the level of silviculture assessment monitoring to the level projected in the approved FMP.
Actions Required:
1. Review silviculture assessment target levels in the approved FMP. 2. Schedule assessments in appropriate AWS. 3. MLFI General Manager and Silviculture Forester will meet to determine
the level of resources required to implement the level of monitoring in the AWS and the MLFI General Manager will incorporate these requirements into budget and human resource planning.
4. Implement assessments as scheduled in AWS. 5. Monitor assessment levels throughout implementation of the FMP
and report assessment results in AR. Organization and Position Responsible:
1. Review by March 31, 2012. 2. Schedule in AWS by April 1 each year. 3. Increased assessments by June 30 each year. 4. Implement assessments by July 1 each year. 5. Report assessment results in AR April 1 each year.
Method of tracking progress:
1. FMP. 2. Annual Work Schedule. 3. AWS and Budget. 4. AWS. 5. Annual Reports.
18
STATUS
1. Complete: Silviculture assessment levels were reviewed. Targets were developed based on past harvest levels and anticipated harvest progression and incorporated into the 2011 FMP; April 2011
2. Complete/Ongoing: Appropriate levels of assessments scheduled by Silviculture Forester and General Manager in annual work plan and budget; March of each year
3. Complete/Ongoing: Annual assessments implemented by Silviculture Forester as approved in budget
4. Complete/Ongoing: Assessment levels monitored by Silviculture Forester and results reported in AR
5. Complete/Ongoing: silviculture assessments after three years are consistent with targets in FMP
Future tracking:
2,3,4,5 Annual Reports
Organization and Position Responsible: 2-5 MLFI General Manager and Silviculture Forester
