Ecuador - September 2010 Quito - Galapagos - Cotopaxi - Otavalo - Mindo

This trip to Ecuador and Galpagos in September 2010 was the first trip outside North America. The opportunity came about because our niece Lee was living in Quito teaching ESL. She had enough Spanish to act as our translator and enough knowledge of the country to be our guide. Good thing. Quito and Ecuador in general was a huge culture shock and we would have been lost without help. The guides say English is relatively common in Ecuador but that wasn't our experience. Everything from hotels, to transportation and especially restaurant menus were all based on Spanish and English speakers in tourism were few and far between.

However, we carried on and with help from our resident interpreter we had a great time.

The trip started with a late night arrival in Quito and a wild cab ride to the Hotel Sebastian in what is regarded as the 'tourist' part of Quito. The Hotel was authentic Ecuadorian and turned out to be really nice. It was a really good base of operations. Staff were great and the retaurant made a great breakfast. Still tough without Spanish but it was doable.

View of Quito south from Sebastian Hotel

Fifth floor - Sebastian Hotel

The noise from car alarms all night was irritating. It sounded as though a car was broken into every few minutes along the streets below the hotel but there didn't look like there were any people out there after dark to do all the break-ins. Eventually I figured out that the alarms were set off by drivers bumping their way out of tiny parking spaces. There were guys along each block who directed drivers into parking spots for a buck or two. The more cars they could cram along the sidewalk the more money they made. Eventually the parking guys went home and when the bars emptied the drivers were left to bump their way out of the tiny parking spots.

They don't like toilet paper in the sewers, which must be really something to see given how ancient they are (How it is that 500 year old buildings built on narrow lanes have any sewers at all is a mystery to me.) so they put a small garbage can beside the toilet and that's where the paper goes. Nice.

I think the Hotel Sebastian cost something like $65.00 US per night which I think was really cheap. When I first booked through an agency before we left the rate actually included a full breakfast in the hotel restaurant. they had wi-fi and free access to a computer in the business area. Some things in Ecuador (like the toilet paper garbage can) were primitive and kind of third world but then they also had this computer infrastructure. Lots of contrasts.

Dogs are a something that came as a surprise. So many strays and so many starving dogs huddled in alleys and doorways. Everyone just walks past them but to those of us from North America it can be really heartbreaking. Our dogs are part of the family but in much of Ecuador they are simply abused and ignored. Terrible. If human compassion for other life is a measure of civilization then places like Ecuador (and Chile) have a long way to go on the civilization scale.

During our first few days in Quito we toured the old city, climbed part way up Pichincha Volcano, took a day trip to Papallacta, visited the tourist sites around the middle of the world and made arrangements to travel to Galapagos. It was all a really great adventure.

Old City

The old city is everything as advertised. Cities in North America are more or less cookie cutter productions from the mid-20th century. Quito is a UNESCO city several hundred years old with a complex history mixed up with native Inca and Spanish culture. Old dank alleyways, narrow sidewalks, rickety infrastructure. Old grand churches and government buildings. Not particualrly 'touristy' when we were there, in fact, the place seemed to be humming along with residents occupied in the business of getting on with things.

Climbing Pichincha

Pichincha is a semi-dormant volcano that forms the western perimeter of Quito. The trip up from the city is popular among locals. They have a terefirico which is a gondola system that leaves on a regular run from a large, modern parking area and runs part way up the mountain. We hiked the trail from the terminal of the teleferico to a final elevation of roughly 4000 metres. (Quito is roughly 3000m ASL). Afterwards I did some research and found that the real thrill of the hike would be to complete the climb and stand at the edge of the volcano looking west to Mindo and the Andes cloud forest.

Papallacta

Papallacta is a popular little spa town something like 70 km east of Quito. They have a series of hot springs as well as a trout farm (ate the trout - it was good). We took a bus to Papallacta and a cab up the mountain road. We walked back down. It doesn't seem too exotic now but at the time walking down this road in Ecuador was quite a thrill. Long way from home. It's the little things that stick. I lost my map in the cab but we found the guy again and sure enough it was between the seat and the door.

Middle of the World!

The centre of the world is another spot popular among locals. For people who seem to be struggling to makes end meet (to put it mildly) they really enjoy their city and country and get out to places, just like in North America, with all the kids and whatnot for a day out. The centre of the world is a tourist place. apparently the monument that marks the equator isn't really on the equator but they don't play that up too much. Close enough. Once again we took local buses to get there and we ended up in a pickup (me in the box at the back) roaring back into Quito.

Back in Quito we spent some time planning a trip to Galapagos which came as a surprise to me. I hadn't anticipated a trip to Galapagos was on the agenda.

Brown Pelican with Catamaran in the distance 

The trip to Ecuador wasn't particularly planned, mainly because it was our first and we had no idea how to go about doing the research and planning. We put ourselves in the hands of our niece/interpreter and just made it up as we went along which is how we ended up flying to Baltra Island in the Galapagos on 12 September 2010. We made arrangements in Quito at a travel agent near the Sebastian Hotel. We were very lucky. We booked a suite (king bed and double pullout - private bath and balcony) on board the Millennium catamaran. Small ship, excellent accommodations. My only regret was that we only had four days and three nights, something I hope to correct in the future. I have some idea of taking a longer tour five years from now in my 65th year.

(Photos)

At the Darwin Centre on Santiago Island 

The tour took us from the airport across Baltra Island  to Puerto Ayora where we boarded the Millennium. For people from the woods of Northwestern Ontario the experience was nothing less than awesome. The colour of the water, the brown pelicans and frigate birds, the fishing fleet in the harbour, and the little town itself was all amazing. I remember how amazing it was to fly in low over the island before we touched down. Never saw anything like it before. Barren, dry, flat lava beds.

Puerto Ayora

Sometime afterward I found out more about Galapagos and the threats the islands face from over population and all the problems that go with that - garbage, sewage, roads, invasive species etc etc. Puerto Ayora was exactly all that. Nice little town but it hid the problems this kind of tourism development creates. It's the paradox. On the one hand tourism benefits so many people in a place like this but then tourism contributes to the degradation of the very experience they are selling.




From Puerto Ayora on Isla Santiago we toured through north and south Plaza islands, North Seymour, Las Baches (on Santiago Island) and ended up at Puerto Baquerizo Moreno on San Cristobal. We saw a lot of the tourism highlights but for first timers it was all great. I tallied up something like 40 birds, we saw numerous iguana species and sea lions. The vegetation, largely tall tree-like cacti of the oputina family was fascinating. Never saw anything like it!

I think all I can say about Galapagos that hasn't already been said is that I want to back, I want to spend more time watching marine iguana (there are numerous other species but the marine iguana is the real unique one) and I want to see tortoises in their native habitat.

Iconic View of Isla Bartoleme

We returned to Quito on 16 September 2010 and back to the Hotel Sebastian. The next day back was a second tour of parts of Quito like the more or less abandoned Basilica with great views over the old city where we found a neat little restaurant high up one of the towers in the Basilica looking down on the city.

Interesting gargoyles carved in the shape of
Boobies, Frigates and Pelicans on the Basilica

Back at the Hotel we booked a trip to Volcano Cotopaxi which is southeast of Quito more or less on the edge of the Andes Mountains. The trip required and early start (0700 we were standing on a corner waiting for a random van which then ran around picking up other travellers on other random corners). I think the full day trip that included the ride, a hike up to the mountain hut (with lunch) and then a bike ride down the volcano cost something like $100 USD for the three of us. Very reasonable for what we got.

The trip took an hour or two along the highway and then a rough trail through the desert. Along the way we stopped at a small village and load bikes on the roof of the van and visited a grocery store where the guide picked up supplies to carry to the hut. We bounced along for a while until we reached the park entrance where we toured a small museum.






Then the fun began. We started from 3000m (9800ft) from Quito and climbed to the parking lot halfway up Cotopaxi at 4500m (14760ft). Out of the van with everything we had on into the face of a gale. Stones were flying around and the wind practically knocked us over. Again, it was surprising how many Ecuadorian locals were out and about also climbing to the hut. Whole families on a day outing. I must admit I didn't do well on the hike and really just crawled up the trail to the hut hiding behind rocks for shelter from the blast. (Our guide marched up carrying a couple of dozen eggs for the kitchen). Anyway, spectacular views of the lava and ash fields around the mountain from the hut at 4310m (14140ft) with a nice lunch in the hut (cold and dizzy) but we couldn't go higher (guides said stones flying around were too big to continue - really, a climb to the crater is an overnighter with full climbing gear - not tourists in hikers). All told we travelled something like 4500ft in elevation from Quito to the hut.

No doubt about it, Cotopaxi was one of the highlights of the trip.


After the Cotopaxi adventure we were back in Quito and off on a bus to Otavalo to tour the indigenous market. Great place (again). I bought a neat wool felt hat, kind of a fedora style. Amazing markets divided into merchandise sections and food sections. Markets covered whole blocks and business was humming even in the off-season.

Lunch was trout again but this time it was a little muddy. Too bad.

Back in Quito we toured some more looking for some neighbourhood (called Quapalo or something) that we didn't find but we had a nice walk anyway. We walked an incredibly busy and narrow road winding down into a river valley where the smell of raw sewage was overwhelming. I guess a relecion of the state of water treatment in Quito.

Our final expedition was an overnighter on September 21 to Mindo in the Andean cloud forest. This is on the western slopes of the Andes about 200km by road from Quito. Four of us took a wild cab ride to Mindo and a bus home the next day.

Interesting to note that the 'blast' zone of the Pichincha volcano on the western outskirts of Quito actually points directly toward Mindo. Much of the underlying soil in the Mindo area is likely ash blown into the area from the volcano. So one time we are climbing Pichincha and later we are touring in forest growing on ash from the same volcano.

Dragonfly Inn - Mindo

Downtown Mindo

Zipliners

An Explorer

Rainy day in Mindo

Mindo is famed for birds, especially hummingbirds of which I saw several species (too hard to name). I did see Blue Tanager and a species of hornbill. We stayed at the Dragon Fly Inn which had full facilities including a restaurant/bar at an incredibly reasonable price.

Jungle stream in Mindo cludforest

School opening exercises

That's it. First overseas trip - successful. New trips will be on the horizon now that we have some confidence in travel and dealing with new and unusual situations. Next time - New Zealand in 2012. 

Independent Forest Audits - Whiskey Jack 2009

Independent forest audits (IFA) are conducted every five years on all forest management units in Ontario. The IFA examine forest practises and compliance with forest management plans. Recommendations and suggestions are presented alongside background comment. Oftentimes the background discussions provide more insight into forest management than the recommendations and suggestions which are often 'modified' by Government reviewers or the industry being audited.

The following is a review of the most recent Whiskey Jack IFA. (Note: approved audits are available on the Governmnent of Ontario website along with the audit action plan and an action plan update.)

The recently completed Independent Forest Audit conducted on the Whiskey Jack Forest by KBM Forestry Consultants is critical of forest management in the Whiskey Jack.  The audit evidence findings, background discussions, conclusions and recommendations describe a wide range of failings on the part of the SFL holder and the MNR in fulfilling their obligations to manage the forest.  These findings and recommendations have significant implications for forest management in the Whiskey Jack now and into the future.  Addressing the problems presented in the audit will require considerable investments in forest surveys, silviculture and analysis to determine the total impacts.

Problems discussed in the audit date back as far as the 1999/04 plan term and continue to have impact through the 2004/09 term and into the recently approved 2009/12 contingency plan.  During the most of that time the forest was managed by Abitibi.  Abitibi surrendered the SFL in 2008 and since that time the forest has been managed by the MNR, Kenora District.  The MNR has assumed the role of forest manager and is currently authoring the new FMP for the term 2012/22.  To this point there has been no recognition of liabilities associated with correcting the past mismanagement of the forest but it is conceivable the Province of Ontario could inherit the financial costs and long-term impacts on forest health and sustainability.

One Kenora LCC representative expressed major concerns with the accuracy of the forest resource inventory, and the reliability of SFMM, citing that the LCC has no expertise to satisfy them of the sustainability of the forest and must rely on the audit.(1)  

This one statement sums up all the major issues identified by the auditors in terms of forest management planning.  This is also a strong voice of support for the audit process and its importance in ensuring MNR and the forest industry act in the best interests of the people of Ontario in the preparation of forest management plans.

The auditor makes 21 recommendations covering most, if not all, aspects of forest management. 

•         Basic assumptions used in the 2004 strategic model
•        Problems with inventory and survey data inputs
•        Lack of linkages between strategic and operational silvicultural planning
•        Numerous examples of poor or unacceptable silvicultural operations

Action Plans 2004 and 2009

The auditor points out that the action plan from the 2004 IFA is still outstanding.  At various times there have been indications that the action plan had been written and possibly approved at the District Manager level but then at other times it seems the plan simply wasn’t done.  It is important to complete and provide that plan, even though it covers an older FMP in order to fully understand the cumulative impacts that continue to be problematic as far as 2012 when the next FMP is scheduled for implementation.

At this point, late 2010, there is no audit action plan available for the 2009 audit.  The action plan was a requirement.  The auditees, in this instance MNR since Abitibi is no longer involved in the forest, is required to prepare and submit an action plan within three months of the receipt of the final audit report.  The final audit report was sent to the Kenora LCC in early June 2010.  The action plan was due in early fall 2010.

The action plan for the 2009 audit is essential, as it will address issues that must be addressed in the new 2012/22 FMP.  That FMP is approaching the time when the public will be asked to comment on the Long Term Management Direction.  The LTMD must consider the implications of this audit and must include measures to meet the audit recommendations[2].

The ongoing lack of response to these audits is a concern.  Obviously, since issues raised in past plans can have impacts on later plans and cumulative effects on long term planning there is some urgency in ensuring they are addressed as quickly as possible.  The failure of those involved to produce action plans in response to the issues raised in these audits negates the effectiveness of the Independent Forest Audit process.  As a member of the public I am concerned with the lack of response to the audits and the problems found in management of the Whiskey Jack Forest.  The audits are in place to ensure that the public interest in the forest has been protected.

The MNR website describes the requirements for the Independent Forest Audit.[3]

Key Messages

There are key findings and recommendations in the audit report that focus on the issues.  In the Executive Summary the auditor provides concise and specific conclusions based on the examination of forest management in the Whiskey Jack[4]:

1.     ‘The audit team found significant issues with management of the Whiskey Jack Forest, both in planning and in on-the-ground implementation of the plan.  The future forest modeled during planning, and the one associated with the selected management alternative, is inconsistent with the natural forest as described in the forest management plan.  The differences are magnified by the silviculture program being implemented in that the program is inconsistent with the forest projected by the selected management alternative and is leading the forest even further away from the natural forest condition.’

2.     ‘The regeneration methods being practiced do not support the plan goal of maintaining current levels of spruce forest and will result in a further departure from what is believed to be the historic forest condition of a spruce dominated forest described in the 2009/12 Contingency Plan.  The resulting forest stands will have a greater hardwood component and lower conifer stocking than projected.  This has implications for the achievement of wildlife habitat management objectives for species that rely on the development of conifer dominated cover types.’

3.     The increase of hardwood at the expense of conifer is the direct result of the absence of a tending program, beyond a small scale spacing program.  This in turn is tied to the protracted dispute with Grassy Narrows First Nation over forest management practices on the Whiskey Jack Forest, including herbicide spraying, and decision not to spray herbicide during the dispute.  A lack of tending was identified as a serious issue in the previous Independent Forest Audit.  Significant effort and expense will be required to retreat or otherwise manage sites artificially regenerated during the audit term to align them with outcomes projected in the 2004/24 Forest Management Plan.  The audit team also found that Free-to-Grow records did not accurately reflect stand attributes; both for the regular survey program and the survey of backlog areas, and therefore needs review.’

4.     ‘Forest sustainability, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol, will not be achieved unless corrective measures are immediately taken to address the following issues:

Silvicultural practices, including a lack of tending of artificially regenerated areas, are leading to reduced stocking of conifer and an increased component of hardwood on the Forest.  This trend does not support the management intention of maintaining a conifer dominated forest, as set out in the 2004/24 Whiskey Jack Forest FMP.’[5]

5.     WHISKEY JACK FOREST RECOMMENDATION ON LICENCE EXTENSION[6]:

The audit team concluded that, with the following critical exception noted below, management of the Whiskey Jack Forest was generally in compliance with the legislation regulations and policies that were in effect during the term covered by the audit, and MNR met its legal obligations. Forest sustainability, as assessed through the Independent Forest Audit Process and Protocol, will not be achieved unless corrective measures are immediately taken to address the issues that silviculture practices, including a lack of tending of artificially regenerated areas, are leading to reduced stocking of conifer and an increased component of hardwood on the Forest. This trend does not support the management intention of maintaining a conifer dominated forest, as set out in the 2004-2024 Whiskey Jack Forest FMP.

Recommendation 3 of this audit must be satisfied to bring the Whiskey Jack Forest into general compliance.

ACCC has surrendered the SFL for the Whiskey Jack Forest to the Crown; therefore the audit team makes no recommendation on licence extension.

Although the auditor makes no recommendation regarding license extension since Abitibi surrendered the SFL in 2008 they do suggest a way forward for the Whiskey Jack Forest [7]. 

‘The SFL holder worked for more than a year to secure a surrender agreement.  Some of the delays were related to assessing liability for silviculture.’   ‘The audit team believes that the process took longer than it should have.  The issue of silviculture liability should not have been a stumbling block.  The records should be up to date and MNR should move quickly to ensure harvest and renewal programs proceed under a direct delivery model, a forest management contract or a new license.  Funds to complete forest renewal should be sufficient if the minimum balance has been maintained.’

Grassy Narrows

The conflict between the Province and Grassy Narrows is mentioned at a number of locations throughout the report.  The impasse between the two parties is linked to the cancelling of the tending program and was a contributing factor in the failure to meet the sustained wood supply objective in the selected management alternative[8].  The auditor offers a perspective on resolution of the impasse. 

‘It is the audit team’s opinion that these differences cannot be resolved without the Province setting aside many of the requirements to manage the Whiskey Jack Forest under the CFSA and the FMPM, and relinquishing significant authority to the First Nation to manage portions of the Whiskey Jack Forest according to the desires of the GNFN community.’[9]

Strategic Planning

The audit discusses a wide range of problems related to the development of the Selected Management Alternative used in the 2004 FMP.  Critical areas were highlighted:

• ·      Development of the base model (inventory shortcomings)
• ·      Unrealistic bounds of natural variation (20% below lowest limit)
• ·      Use of current forest condition as representation of natural forest
• ·      Absence of historic forest information
• ·      Lack of linkage between modeled silvicultural program and planned program (also noted in 2004 audit – not addressed)
• ·      Target to enhance red and white pine on the Forest will not be met.[10]

·      There was a general lack of detail in annual report discussions, as required in the FMPM to provide perspective on the achievement of plan objectives, something that may have highlighted problems related to the disconnect between the SMA and the natural forest condition[11]

The cumulative impact of the shortcomings was significant.  Rather then manage the forest to move toward a natural forest condition which was a key plan objective, the SMA actually moved the forest further away from the natural forest condition based on the historic forest condition.  Hardwood and mixed woods were overrepresented in the current condition following decades of extensive harvesting whereas the natural forest was largely conifer.  The SMA, with all its shortcomings as described above led, to increasing hardwood and mixed wood and decreasing conifer that was not consistent with the natural forest objective.

The auditor recommends that the model be rerun at the end of the 2004 plan term to determine to determine objective achievement[12] as part of the final annual report.  The results of implementing the SMA from 2004, combined with other issues identified including the FTG and Barren and Scatter surveys and silvicultural shortcomings will have important implications for the current forest condition used in the 2012 FMP.  The legacy from the 2004 FMP must be considered in the development of the LTMD for 2012.

Silvicultural Shortcomings

The legacy issues from the 2004 plan term extend to failings identified in the delivery of the silvicultural program[13].   These legacy silvicultural liabilities must be addressed in the LTMD and in planned operations in the 2012 FMP.  The cost involved in assessing areas renewed followed by site preparation; renewal and tending to address these liabilities will be enormous.  If nothing is done forest health and composition will be affected for the foreseeable future and long-term objectives in the 2012 FMP, including wood supply and provision of wildlife habitat will be compromised.

• ·      Site preparation was often too light and spacing was too wide
• ·      Planting density decreased significantly from 2,000 to 1,334 per/ha
• ·      Lack of planting white spruce, red pine and white pine contrary to plan objectives[14]
• ·      Many areas that were seeded were not well stocked and will require fill plan/re-seeding.  Under-stocking is mainly a result of … light and wide scarification
• ·      Large grassy areas (blank patches) on fine textured soils.
• ·      Lack of tending (22,000 ha) [15]
• ·      Silvicultural effectiveness monitoring found SGR standards were rarely met [16]

Inventory

Unless issues identified affecting information used in development of the 2012 FMP including the forest resource inventory are addressed the development of the LTMD will be no more useful than the SMA from 2004.  The auditor discusses numerous problems related to Barren and Scatter surveys, Free to Grow Surveys, and silvicultural effectiveness monitoring.   In most cases (although not all; note issues with low stocking identified in natural regenerated aspen) the results of these survey problems will overestimate the amount of conifer in the current and future forest.  The overestimation of conifer will affect many plan objectives in the LTMD including wood supply, forest cover and wildlife habitat (esp. caribou and marten).

• ·      Over-estimation of stocking in regular Free To Grow program.  (18,000 ha)[17]
• ·      All areas planted and seeded during audit term must be reviewed.[18]
• ·      Inaccuracy of ‘calls’ in backlog survey (93,000 ha.). [19]
• ·      Inventory update required to correct assessment issues. [20]

General Liabilities

The forest manager for the Whiskey Jack Forest, however that is sorted out, will face a wide variety of other liabilities identified in the audit.

• ·      There is a shortage of seed in storage for the current renewal program and certainly for the enhanced program required to address the silvicultural shortcomings.[21]
• ·      Slash piles were left to accumulate throughout the forest after 2007 such that ‘ Slash management has been and continues to be an issue on the Forest’ [22] which will require considerable effort to map and clean up.
• ·      Grassy Narrows and Ontario continue to try to negotiate a settlement of the grievances raised by Grassy Narrows that led to the establishment of a blockade, still in effect today, in 2002.[23]
• ·      Site damage, including examples of extensive over stripping for road building, soil compaction, and drainage disturbances, all of which contribute to the loss of productive land must be addressed to restore the forest to its original productivity.
• ·      A complete assessment of water crossings must be completed to repair damage caused by erosion from winter water crossings and to address issues of old crossings which have failed or will fail in the future with the required follow up actions.[24]

Compliance

The auditor provides an overview of the Abitibi compliance plan and the interaction between MNR and Abitibi in the delivery of the compliance program.[25]  The audit found that there was a program and that for the most part it was delivered according to requirements in place at the time.

The audit also references problems with specific elements of the compliance program such as inconsistent compliance interpretation leading to disagreement between Abitibi and MNR regarding compliance status.   The auditor was also concerned with the high level of ‘in-compliance’ reports submitted by Abitibi versus the ‘not in compliance’ reports from the MNR.  Essentially, MNR reported a much higher number of not in compliance reports against the few submitted by Abitibi.  Note that while it isn’t unusual to find more MNR non-compliance reports than those of the industry, the auditor suggests the ratio in the audit term was a problem.

The auditor reported on some specific site related issues.

·      Winter water crossings[26]

·      Issues of public safety regarding aggregate pit operations[27]

·      Excessive road building, landings and stripping [28]

·      Soil damage related to forest operations resulting in lost productive land

·      Accumulations of slash piles contrary to slash management commitments in FMP leading to further loss of productive land

Forest management plans normally include an estimate of productive forest area lost to road construction.  There are no similar estimates of losses caused by the other factors discussed in the audit report however they might be substantial and obviously the total lost land exceeds the conservative FMP estimate.  There will be long term impacts on forest productivity and associated impacts from soil erosion, damaged drainage systems and so on.

The compliance program failed to prevent these poor practices even though the FMP included provisions to protect forest sites during operations[29], controls on installation and removal of winter water crossings[30] and requirements to manage slash piles[31][32].

The total area affected and the resulting withdrawal of productive forestland should be determined and used to further net down the area available for forestry purposes in the 2012 FMP.

Conclusion

The MNR is within weeks (as of mid-January 2011) of releasing the long-term management direction (LTMD) for the 2012/22 Whiskey Jack Forest FMP.  The Local Citizens Committee was provided with a presentation by the MNR highlighting the critical elements of the LTMD.

The LTMD appears to ignore the implications of addressing the findings, conclusions and recommendations in the 2009 IFA.  Once again, as in 2004, the plan is written on the basis of an inventory that may include errors that are known and which could be corrected.  If in fact, for example, the barren and scatter survey covering some 93,000 ha overestimated conifer and overall stocking then more than 10% of the productive forest may be misrepresented in the inventory.  If the failures in the silvicultural program including the prevalence of gaps and holes in renewed areas, lower than anticipated stocking and errors in working group typing then those areas further misrepresent the true condition.  If the analysis isn’t done to determine the current path of the forest into the future given the problems listed in the IFA then it is impossible to estimate the future condition.

Clearly, the ongoing dispute with Grassy Narrows must be resolved.  The IFA provides background and offers an opinion on a solution however there is no recognition in the LTMD of the implications a resolution to the issue might have.

In my view, the audit findings, conclusions and recommendations must be addressed before the LTMD is released otherwise public confidence in the LTMD will be eroded.

---

[1]  IFA Local Citizens Committee Page 62

[2] IFA Recommendation #21

[3]http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Forests/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167046.html

[4]  IFA Executive Summary page ii

[5]  IFA 4.6 Silvicultural page 17

[6] 2009 Independent Forest Audit Annual Provincial Action Plan

[7] IFA 4.8 Contractual Obligations page 23

[8]  IFA Page 52

[9] IFA 4.2 Public and Aboriginal Involvement page 7

[10]  IFA Page 35

[11]  IFA Recommendations #19 and #20

[12] IFA Recommendation #20

[13]  IFA Page 14

[14] Whiskey Jack FMP 2004/09 Objective #2

[15]  IFA Page 15

[16]  IFA Page 18

[17]  IFA Page 17

[18] IFA Recommendation #12

[19]  IFA Page 17

[20]  IFA Page 18

[21]  IFA Page 39

[22] IFA Page 36

[23]  IFA 4.2 Public and Aboriginal Involvement Page

[24]  IFA Recommendations #15, #16 and #17

[25]  IFA page 19 Compliance

[26]  IFA Recommendation 16 page 42

[27]  IFA Recommendation 17 page 44

[28]  IFA Recommendation 15 page 41

[29] Whiskey Jack FMP 2004/09 App. 5 Guidelines for the Protection of the Physical Environment

[30] Whiskey Jack FMP 2004/09 Sec. 2,4,5 Access Roads

[31]  IFA (2004) Recommendation #7

[32]  Whiskey Jack FMP 2004/09 Objective #4 Sustained wood Supply