Algonquin Provincial Park - The Reality

The following Q&A was posted on a forestry sponsored website.  My intent is to correct the propoganda, with facts, not logging add-speak.  I'm constantly receiving new information so this page will be updated frequently and iteratively as I learn more. It's intended to get the facts out -  and provide a comprehensive FAQ. I've left the original answers by Jeff Muzzi and added facts in BLUE. The questions were highlighted in RED just for ease of reading, no text was changed.
Forestry operations in Algonquin Provincial Park - the Reality
Submitted by greg_g on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 09:32.  By Jeff Muzzi, Manager of Forestry Services, County of Renfrew

.

Q1. I didn’t know logging was allowed in Algonquin Park! 

A Logging first began in what is now Algonquin Park around 1830. It’s been ongoing ever since – almost 180 years.

Algonquin Park was created in 1893 largely in response to the timber lobby to prohibit farming there so that timbering could continue on a longterm basis. Creation of the Park allowed the implementation of a long advocated policy, based on fear of risk of fire in the forest, to “permit no isolated scattered settlers to locate amidst the pine forests” (Burke 1855:623). Despite a report early in 1895 from Peter Thomson, first Superintendent of Algonquin National Park, as it was then known, that “there is no open and flagrant violation of those provisions which forbid hunting and trapping in the Park” (Thompson 1895), Algonquins who lived in Lawrence and Nightingale Townships were evicted on the pretext that “the presence of the Indians might be a great danger to the preservation of the game in the Park” (White 1895). Chief Peter Sharbot was one of the people affected. Pine lumbering in what would later be the Park started around 1830 and peaked in the 1860's. When the Park was formed in 1893, the Parks Act prohibited logging of any species other than white and red pine. . In 1897, J.R. Booth financed a railroad between Ottawa and Parry Sound, along the north side of the park. In 1900, an amendment to the Parks Act added spruce, black birch (white birch), yellow birch, white cedar, black ash and tamarack, to the trees which could be logged from the park.  The first hardwood to be extensively logged in the park was yellow birch, which was cut primarily from the 1930's to the 1950's. From about 1945 to today logging of sugar maple has steadily increased, while a wide variety of other trees are still being cut.

Q2. How much of the Park are the logging companies allowed to harvest?

A. Around 52% of the Park is area where harvest is allowed. The rest is areas where harvest is not permitted (important ecological, historical or recreational values) or areas where no logging has ever taken place – lakes, swamps, that sort of thing. Within the harvest area, all special values are protected – hawk’s nests, turtle habitat – anything that may be affected by forest management operations. The actual amount of protected park is currently 22%. The Ontario Parks, through a 2006 exercise referred to as "Lightening the Footprint" has recommended protection in the park be increased to 35% which means a 7% reduction in actual timber harvested (the balance of protection is given to non-merchantable areas such as rocks, water, swamp land etc. Refer to the Post titled "Lightening the Footprint" for specific details). The MNR concede that new Areas of Concern that would better protect wildlife are currently under review, waiting for approval. They admit they are working with outdated science.

Q3. How much of it is clear-cut?
A. Almost all of the harvest is selective – no more than 1 tree in 4 is cut. All of the trees to be harvested are marked by highly trained technicians prior to operations beginning. When clear-cuts are used (and that’s less than 4% of the area) they are used to maintain forest diversity and emulate natural disturbances, like fire. The MNR have gone on record to state the Emulation of Clear cutting does NOT emulate what nature does naturally. Clear cutting combined with fire suppression is environmentally damaging. More factually correct, the following was provided by the MNR regarding harvest methods in Algonquin: In Algonquin Park there are 3 harvest systems used; selection, shelterwood (partial cutting systems) and clearcut. The system used is based primarily on the light requirements (or shade tolerance) of the desired species. Planting trees is used only on a few selected areas with natural regeneration being the preferred method for the majority of the forest.

The most common system is selection (~55% of harvest) used for shade tolerant hardwoods such as Sugar Maple and Beech. In this system approximately 25-30% of the trees are cut with specific removal targets for each size class to ensure a multi-aged stand is maintained. Using this system the stand is harvested every 20-30 years depending on the site, and because there is multiple ages present under this system the stand can be harvested continually on this cycle.
The 2nd system used is shelterwood (~40% of harvest) common for White pine and hardwoods that are in the middle of the shade tolerance range. This is series of cuts designed to manage light levels to promote and maintain regeneration. For White pine this is a 4 harvest system. The first harvest is the preparatory cut which removes poor quality trees and promotes seed production in large dominant trees. Approximately 20 years later is the seeding cut which opens up the canopy to allow more light to reach the forest floor thereby promoting natural regeneration. The third harvest is the 1rst removal and it occurs approximately 20-25 years after the seeding cut (depending on the site, regeneration success and other factors) this is intended to improve the growing conditions of the established seedlings, approximately 60% of the crown closure remains. The final stage in the shelterwood system is the final removal which occurs approximately 20 years after the 1rst removal, this removes most of the remaining overstory and the new stand (now approximately 6m tall) takes over. Clear cut harvesting is used to emulate fire in Jack pine, Red pine, and shade intolerant hardwoods. This system is by far the least used of the 3 systems in the Park (less than 5% of all harvests).

Q4. How much gets cut every year?
A. Less than 1 ½ % of the Park’s forested area is cut in any given year. These areas can be cut again in about 25 years – in fact, there are loggers working in the Park that are cutting the same places their grandfathers, and subsequently their fathers, harvested timber. More than 50 years of modern Logging has eliminated much of the old-growth hardwood and hemlock forest in the managed forest part of Algonquin, however significant patches do still exist and are threatened with logging. Some are allocated within the current five-year management plan, others have recently been logged. These forests, some of which have been growing since the early 1600's, are irreplaceable. Trees that are 375 years old or more cannot be managed "sustainably" by modern forestry which typically works on rotation periods of 100 years or less.

Q5. Are the logging companies regulated?
A. Absolutely. The Crown Forest Sustainability Act, the Provincial legislation that governs activities on Crown Land, has the most stringent rules in the world. Also, the Park forest is certified by the Canadian Standards Association as a “certified sustainably managed forest” – an internationally recognized, independent audit system that ensures forests are properly managed.  The Government has licensed the harvest operations of the park to another crown agency , the AFA which means APP is essentially self- governing, with no 3rd party regulatory agency, or standard. The certification of Algonquin is being challenged by Eco-Justice as unlawful. The CFSA allows all license holders to monitor their own operations, with the only protection in the form of a 5 year audit. In the case of Algonquin, the audit was conducted by the government, not a 3rd party. It is sorely lacking in detail, and credibility. No other standard or certification that I am aware of, is granted without 3rd party independent assessment, monitoring, and review. (Example ISO140001)
From the MNR I received this response on questions relating to certification: ``The Algonquin Forestry Authority, the exclusive license holder for the Park is not certified to FSC, however they are certified to both ISO 14001 and CSA Z809 standards. These certifications are similar to the FSC program but administered by different agencies. Information on all these certifications is available online. The AFA has been certified to CSA since February 2008.``

I strongly disagree with the forester`s response regarding certifications being similar to FSC. Eco-Justice is challenging the CSA Z809. Link attached here Eco Justice CSA Challenge APP The ISO 14001 certification is a risk management approach to environmental safety, it has more to do with protecting humans than saving trees. FSC certification was developed by Greenpeace. Link attached here FSC Certification Standards

Q6 . But those big logging companies – do they care about the Park, or just the “bottom line”?
A. The companies that harvest and process Algonquin Park wood are, in fact, small, family-owned firms that have been in business for a very long time. For example, Herb Shaw and Sons, in Pembroke, has been operating for over 150 years; Murray Brothers (Madawaska) and McRae Lumber (Whitney) have both been operating for over a century. These folks all rely on Algonquin Park wood. They have also invested heavily over the past century to improve the overall quality of the forest and to improve habitat.
Something else you should know – when times get tough (and they do in the lumber industry, it is cyclical) these folks don’t export their jobs to developing nations. They keep their people working, even if it is at a loss, and weather the storm. They support the towns where their employees work – schools, hospitals, minor sports… watch a hockey game in any of these towns around the Park, and on the kid’s sweaters you’ll see “Murray Bros”, “Visneskie Logging”, or countless other business names – all running on wood from Algonquin Park.

This is a rhetorical question. Private enterprise (in any vertical) is engaged first and foremost to make a profit. Period. The fact these companies have been in existence for 150 years is hardly comforting, in fact, what this statement does acknowledge is that these mills have been responsible for the environmental rape of the forest pre and post war eras. Values of all Ontarians are very different from what they were around the time of the 2nd World War, let alone more than 150 years ago, and the more important question is WHAT value do these businesses bring in a new world economy, how will they ensure our assets are protected, and why should they continue.

Q7. What do they do for the Park itself?
A. These firms donate money, time and material to Park projects – they helped build the Visitor’s Centre, restored historical sites like Basin Depot… they continuously give money to scientific research projects in the Park, such as wolf, bear and wood turtle research.  Without any proof or financial statement, I have no idea how to respond to this statement, other than to make a general comment that philanthropic gestures done in the true spirit of altruism are done anonymously, not as a means to justify an end. The Forest Renewal Trust Fund mandates all harvesters contribute financially to the forest sustainment which is mandated by the CFSA. What is factually supported, is that Forest Renewal trust funds that logging is responsible to pay are directly linked to harvest levels, therefore, since the harvest is far below forecast, the contribution to silvicultural renewal is equally lacking. These forest renewal funds are designed to sustain the silvicultural costs of the forest, and to support community costs including roads. As per 2009 audited financials, APP is precariously hovering in the red.

Q8. But doesn’t logging damage habitat?
A. Absolutely not. YES! Deforestation and forest degradation account for nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Forests absorb carbon, storing incredible amounts in trees, plants and soil. When these forests are cut, most of the carbon they hold is released back into the atmosphere.This is an industrial activity, just like mining, and oil sands, it has an absolute cost to the environment. The Climate Change report issued by the MNR makes it very clear harvest extraction is linked to climate change, and all Ontario will live with the consequences of what we do today The regulations in place guarantee that habitat damage does not occur. In fact, logging ensures the long-term sustainability of many ecosystems. For example, wildfires in Algonquin Park are controlled, for obvious reasons; what logging does is emulate what nature would do. In fact, Algonquin Eco Watch, an organization dedicated to sustaining Park ecosystems, supports the controlled logging operations in the Park. Don’t take my word for it – check out their website at www.algonquin-eco-watch.com.One of the most damning aspects of the current forest management process is that species at risk (such as the snapping turtle) have no protection from logging, since the prescription or Area of Concern has not been drafted yet (The MNR require the approval from ESA (to be confirmed), and the two groups are not cohesive. Currently, snapping turtles are listed as a species at risk, but you can still get a fishing license to hunt them.There are absolute and real risks of species extirpation within the park if logging is allowed to continue .

Q9. Is it true there are a huge number of logging roads in Algonquin Park?
A. No. YES! There are about 2,000 kilometres of logging roads in active service at any point in time in the Park – around ¼ of 1% of the area. Keep in mind that these roads aren’t just used for logging; they are used to service the Park, for fire control, to rescue lost or injured campers, to conduct scientific research, and for the local Algonquin First Nation to access natural resources. And, the next time you are portaging your canoe, have a close look at the trail – chances are that it was originally a logging road!
A group that opposes logging in the Park has stated that there are “8,000 kilometres of roads in the Park…enough roads to go to Florida and back…5,487 kilometres of road…almost as much as the Trans-Canada Highway…” the number changes with every telling. They even claim they “ground-truthed” roads – I don’t know how you “ground-truth” something that isn’t there.  Making spurious accusations about other entities motives and activities without inviting them to comment is unprofessional, and promotes poor public relations. Confining your response to what you do, will earn credibility. In any case, this "group" has published 2000 km of road, and yes, I do see "8000 km" was identified by Eco Justice in a claim under the Freedom Of Information Act in 2006. Inviting their response for clarification would be what I would expect a newspaper to do (publish both sides). Notwithstanding, roads are linear clear cuts. They are ecologically damaging, they promote divides in wildlife habitat that create unnatural corridors for predation and roadkill, they increase the risk of species conversion which is accelerated as more roads are introduced, and close proximity of roads to streams and watersheds is acknowledged by the MNR as environmentally damaging (source will be provided)

Q10. But don’t roads fragment habitat, and harm wildlife migration routes, that sort of thing?
A. In the Park, there is a permanent road system that includes public roads like Highway 60, Achray Road and others. Purpose-built logging roads, when logging operations are completed, are abandoned and rehabilitated – basically “removed” from the landscape. Old roads are re-used during forest management operations to minimize the “footprint”. Also, the width of logging roads in the Park is restricted to less than the Provincial rules allow. So, the impact of logging roads is very minimal.  As above, this is simply not true. Its a perspective of a industry that needs roads to operationalize and extract timber, and anything stated here is highly biased.

Q11. You mentioned the local Algonquin First Nation community – how do they feel about logging in the Park?
A. I can’t speak for the Algonquin First Nation, but you should know that they have used the natural resources in Algonquin Park – everything from fish and wildlife to birch bark and trees for canoe construction – for millennia. The Algonquins of Pikwakanagan have a community-owned logging and forest management company that employs over 50 people in the Park. Most of the other logging and forest product processing facilities around the Park employ Algonquins. But don’t take my word for it – contact Makwa Community Development Corporation in Golden Lake, Algonquins of Whitney and Area or the Algonquin Loggers Association of Whitney and ask them.
Park forestry operations are so important to the local Algonquin community that 9 Algonquin native community members sit on the forest management planning team.
Today, there is an outstanding FN claim for much of the land surrounding Algonquin (More facts on this will be posted).

(Source for the historical analysis): Link here: History of APP Historically, as previously noted above, Algonquins who lived in Lawrence and Nightingale Townships were evicted on the pretext that “the presence of the Indians might be a great danger to the preservation of the game in the Park” (White 1895). Furthermore, historical records show that soon after Algonquin Park was formed in 1893 all 46 of Chief Peter Sharbot’s community were evicted from Nightingale and Lawrence, the two townships they had occupied since 1849 (Bennett 1895; Reed 1894; Reed 1895, White 1895). William Perley was a lumber baron who established extensive mills in Ottawa at the head of Chaudière Falls and whose facilities extended to nearby Victoria Island, a traditional Aboriginal gathering location prior to industrialization (BiFw-87), long known for its significance as the sacred spiritual meeting ground of many Aboriginal Nations and a sacred site where tobacco offerings were placed in the bedrock potholes created by the swirling water (Allen 2004a:41; Gillis 1982:681; Thumbadoo 2005:15). Perley was described as a leading man of the Dominion and was involved in such activities as service on the Executive Committee for a lavish ball held for the Governor General in the Senate Chamber (Leggo 1878:206, 207). Before Perley died in 1890 his influence as a railroad builder, financier, lumber tycoon, Vice President of the Liberal Conservative Association of Ottawa and Conservative Member of Parliament in Sir John A. MacDonald’s Government, may well have had a direct impact on Chief Peter Sharbot, his neighbour across Farm Bay at Galeairy Lake (Gemmill 1887:152; Mackintosh 1879:470).

Today, the Ontario Heritage Act requires Historical Artifacts within Algonquin Provincial Park be preserved, however, the Ministry of Natural Resources Archaeological Site Potential model has faulty logic since it does not recognize many wetlands or water courses as water so timbering can occur right to the shorelines of some lakes, beaver ponds and creek banks. Obviously the MNR model is largely inconsistent with provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. Fortunately officials from Algonquin Park and the Algonquin Forestry Authority recognized the importance of the Peter Sharbot Homestead site soon after the discovery and greatly extended the usual 30 metre forestry “no-cut” zone along the shoreline reserve to a 150 metre radiant reserve from the datum point near the barn. The datum point is over 100 metres from the shoreline. This decision effectively suspended the scheduled 2005 forestry operations in the immediate vicinity of the Sharbot Homestead property. The responsiveness of these officials is to be commended since they previously depended on. Interestingly the majority of the Sharbot Homestead is in a zone well back from the shoreline in an area considered until now by Ontario Parks to have no archaeological potential so forestry operations had been planned there. Within two metres of Chief Sharbot’s barn foundation, a structure 7 by 10 metres, tree markers had marked trees for cutting without recognizing the foundation.

Q12. Who is complaining about the logging in the Park?
A. Not the visitors. The fact that people do not complain directly to the park management is an indicator of nothing, except perhaps frustration. It is also true that through increased public pressure to reduce harvest in Algonquin, the logging has become less visible to the recreationalist.   APP is the only provincial park that still allows logging operations to continue. With close to 1,000,000 visitors to the Park in a year, there are less than 10 complaints about logging. Every effort is made to keep logging and recreational uses of the Park separated. Logging in the summer is restricted to small areas well away from other Park users, and the road and harvest systems are designed to have minimal impact on canoe routes, scenery – anything that might negatively affect other users. The results of these efforts speak for themselves – most Park visitors are unaware that forest management activities even occur in Algonquin.

Q13. But I see lots of stuff in the newspapers and magazines that say logging is destroying the Park!
A. One group is very vocally opposed to logging in Algonquin Park. That group, CPAWS – Wildlands League (www.wildlandsleague.org) constantly bombards the press and politicians with hyperbole about Park logging operations. They don’t feel particularly constrained by the truth. They continually misrepresent the facts and make unsubstantiated allegations. Interestingly, on their website, they have a pie chart showing that 86% of their revenue is spent on “Conservation Programs”. Since they are a charitable organization, they are required to submit a T3010 Return (Registered Charity Information Return), to Revenue Canada (www.cra-arc.gc.ca). Have a look. You’ll see that in 2008, 53% of their revenue went to “salaries and wages”, 12% to “consulting” and 8% to “travel”. I leave it up to you how Wildlands League defines “Conservation Programs” …
By contrast, Algonquin Eco Watch, whose vision statement is “to assess, protect and sustain the Algonquin ecosystem for the future”, do not pay any wages or salaries. They do their work because they love the Park – and they support logging! Again, to state CPAWS is the only opposed group, is false.  In 2007, the Ontario Parks Board made recommendations to lighten the ecological footprint of logging, recognizing that logging is ecologically damaging. The recommendations proposed by the Minister for adoption in the 2010-2020 FMP will add  another 13% to the protected land area, up to a total of about 35%.  The public response to the OPB recommendations to reduce ecological footprint resulted in about 6000 responses in letters and emails from various individuals and conservation groups' websites. The anti-logging responses outweighed pro-logging by about five to one.

Q14. If logging is good environmentally, economically and socially, why does the Park need “protection” from it?
A. It doesn’t. What Algonquin needs protection from is overuse and abuse of campsites (please leave a light footprint when you visit!); invasive species (please clean your camping equipment and watercraft before you come to Algonquin, and please don’t bring firewood in!); and littering (seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?) Also, some conservation groups are very concerned about the increasing cormorant population, and how that will affect the sustainability of fish populations in the Park. Things happening outside the Park – climate change, development, invasive species – will ultimately have the biggest impact on Park ecosystems. This is again, a view of a logger, and a community bent on logging. It is not representative of Ontarian`s, who own the park (simply because you live near it, does not give you preferential rights to how it should be managed). Ironically, Muzzi notes the importance of climate change and species conversion but demonstrates his poor grasp of science by stating both are issues òuside the park`. Logging is directly related to climate change and species conversion is directly related to clear cutting.   Further, as per the Ontario Parks Lightening the Footprint Mandate: The new Ontario Parks Act states that parks must now be managed to protect their ecological integrity - simply put, parks should be managed so that they reflect their natural, undisturbed condition as much as possible. In Algonquin, the past nature reserve and wilderness zone additions along with any new OPB adoptions to be announced, is progress being made in the right direction, towards protecting and restoring ecological integrity.

This newer approach addresses the question of what's best for the park from an ecological and conservation-oriented base, rather than what's best for a group of park users. The new Ontario Parks Act recognizes this basic change in park management - this means that user groups cannot be the primary force defining management, whether they be loggers or recreationalists. The well-being of the park's natural features, maintaining and restoring integrity for ecological reasons, must now be the main defining principle.

Q15. Why in the world doesn’t the Provincial government tell us how successful, ecologically sound, and important Park logging is?
A. I can’t answer that. I’m absolutely mystified. I can . The logging revenues as published in this thread do not cover expense, and with the rising dollar, demand will only decline further. Based on 3 year actuals, the harvest revenues will not exceed 58% of forecast at the end of the 5 year period. Operationally, the logging is barely break-even, in fact the audit acknowledges the stumpage fees are in arrears which means loggers are taking Ontario taxpayer assets without paying for them. (See Revenue Analysis and reports below) The MNR have acknowledged logging in APP is environmentally destructive, and the Environmental commissioner's report on Climate Change is the final nail in the coffin. The MNR admit to frustration with dated science, and the species at risk increase. Only 3 % of the park is milled with engineered products, this is a telling indicator of poor innovation and a lack of forward thinking and planning In Algonquin Park, the Ontario government has “got it right”; they’ve adapted a multi-use management strategy that integrates social, economic and environmental factors effectively; they’ve brought industry, recreation and First Nation interests together with enormous success; and they’ve done it for over 100 years. The multi-use approach in Algonquin Provincial Park has been emulated and admired worldwide; I have absolutely no idea why they aren’t bragging about it at every opportunity.

Q16. How do I get more information?
A. Start by learning about the forest management planning process. All Crown forests in Ontario are very tightly regulated, including Algonquin Park. The process for planning how these forests are managed is very transparent, and public scrutiny and comment are welcomed. The Algonquin Forestry Authority’s website (www.algonquinforestry.on.ca/) is a good starting point.
Communities around the Park – County of Renfrew, South Algonquin Township, Hastings County, Pikwakanagan First Nation, among others – all rely on forest products from Algonquin Park to sustain their businesses, and they would be glad to answer questions about the importance of their local forest industry.
How much do these communities care about their local forest industry? As part of the forest management planning process there are a series of “open houses” where the public is invited to comment on the proposed forest management plan. In July 2009, open houses were held in a number of locations around the province, including Toronto and Ottawa. Guess how many people showed up in Toronto? Zero. Not a soul. How many showed up in Barry’s Bay, where the forest industry is absolutely vital? 130.
Visit the local communities – places like Barry’s Bay, Killaloe, Whitney, Mattawa, Golden Lake…you are sure to meet a Park logger whose great-grandfather logged in Algonquin Park. Ask them if Algonquin needs “protection” from logging!

Below are questions I asked the MNR directly. However, appending them here creates a comprehensive FAQ. No response from Muzzi on these, so the response in white is from the MNR. I will add my perspective in blue.

Q17. Is Fire suppression actively practised in APP, if so, why and where. How long has fire suppression been part of the forest management activities
Fire suppression has occurred since approximately the 1930’s and continues to actively occur in the Park, although linked this is managed separately from forestry in the Park. Fire suppression is required to protect the many values present within and adjacent to the Park including: canoeists, Park infrastructure, Petawawa military base, private land, etc. There are provisions for fire management set out within the Algonquin Provincial Park Management Plan (APPMP) and the FMP must comply with the APPMP. Specifically related to fire the APPMP states that “All fires within Algonquin Park will receive a suppression response”. Please note however that the development of a new Fire Management Plan for the Park is ongoing and is scheduled to be completed by 2012, a possible component of this plan will be measured response to fire within the Park depending on fire origin, location, and values at risk.

Q18 I'm a bit confused by the following statements (as I understand them from your LTMD): The Pileated woodpecker habitat is expected to be reduced in the next 5-7 years because (as I understand it) the forest is old, and is returning to early successional. In laypersons language, I intrepret this to mean the trees are dying due to old age (everything dies eventually if we leave it long enough)...and so the forest is naturally cycling. The confusion for me is in an unmanaged forest, the woodpecker would thrive with the deadwood. But in managed forests, my understanding is that trees are harvested before they die (naturally). So what I don't follow is why the Pileated woodpecker habitat would be at risk if the forest is old.

Your interpretation is generally correct however some of the “trees dying” is actually just harvesting in later stages of management, it is actually a combination of both natural succession and harvesting. The reduction in Pileated woodpecker habitat is largely due to as you mentioned the converting of older forest to younger forest such as occurs after the final removal in a White pine shelterwood as discussed above. This reduction in habitat is temporary as areas that are currently too young to be considered Pileated woodpecker habitat age into the acceptable or preferred habitat range. Wildlife habitat management is a constant balancing act and while Pileated woodpecker habitat may be reduced over the short term, habitat for species that prefer younger forests is correspondingly increased. The dynamic nature of forests and wildlife cause short term increases and decreases in preferred habitat naturally and according to our model projections the forestry activities planned should maintain Pileated woodpecker habitat within an acceptable range of the natural benchmark. The Forest Management Guidelines for the Provision of Pileated Woodpecker Habitat can be accessed here if you would like some background information: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR_E000515.pdf

Q19 What does the OWHAM provide vs SFMM - is this model unique to APP or is it used elsewhere (in other FMPs).
OWHAM is the Ontario Wildlife Habitat Assessment Model, it is a spatial model which projects the area of available habitat for selected species based on the initial forest inventory and the proposed management strategy. SFMM is the Strategic Forest Management Model and it is a non-spatial that projects the available harvest area and volumes based upon inputs related to landscape, wildlife, and old-growth targets for the management unit. Both models are used provincially for every FMP produced.
NOTE: Below answers are sourced from an independent wood supply audit done by KBM Forestry Consultants to provide a 3rd party perspective on the viability of the Ontario Parks recommendations to Lighten the Footprint. Full Audit here KBM 2006 Wood Supply Audit APP I have added my comments in Blue - for discussion on December 1 with the MNR.  

Q20 Why does the Forest maintain higher than utilized harvest levels (ie 75% of the park or now with LTFP, 65%)?
The MNR Wood Supply Report also describes the need to maintain higher than utilized harvest areas to ensure the availability of certain products, such as grade 1 sawlogs and veneer that are found in heterogeneous stands of lower grade material. In addition, transportation and localized use patterns within the Forest vary from one section to another. My interpretation is that popular is one such example of lower grade material, but Grade 1 sawlogs I would assume to be Sugar Maple for furniture/flooring since Maple does not grow in a homogeneous stand. The other statement supports my assertion that increased harvest targets allow for more roads, and through examination of the Financial Statements (These will be posted below on the fact sheet) The AFA recieves $2M a year for roads from the MNR for any road that is shared, therefore the logging community builds roads for free..its therefore cheaper and easier to just build a road to get to the tree than figure out a more efficient method of harvest.

Q21 What could be done to reduce the footprint without affected the fibre quota?
Other models such as Patchworks2 might be better suited for further analysis. Patchworks is capable of integrating operational and strategic analyses, as spatially explicit harvest allocations can be developed over long-term planning horizons. One of the benefits of a spatially explicit analysis is that it can allow for various weights to be placed on operating areas. For example, a win-win scenario may be found by assigning different weights in the harvest scheduling process to areas with high recreation and/or ecological value. These weightings would mean that harvest is avoided as much as possible, but not fully prohibited, within these areas. This could reveal opportunities for protecting recreational and ecological values while maintaining an economically viable wood supply. If warranted, the framework and extent of further analysis should form part of the negotiation and discussion process. It should be noted that analyses are costly and time consuming and cannot fully eliminate uncertainty. However, further analysis can reduce uncertainty and explicitly define the trade-offs. Above all, the usefulness of computer simulation is in decision support not decision making. Using GEO spatial software instead of the SFMM which is non-spatial and tabular (ie rows of data), is what I discussed with the MNR in early November on the phone and was told the spatial software would not be available until 2010 (after the plan). My position is that the plan can be re-drafted with this new software to accommodate increased protection zones.

Q22 What is the difference between standing timber sales and product sales when reported as Revenue by the AFA?
Per The Forest Owners Guide To Federal Income Tax The following definitions:
Date of Disposal: This is the date the timber is cut. Defintion of "cut" It is not generally practical to measure timber in the woods as it is cut, so "cut" is more often defined as the date of disposal first determined, which could mean at a log landing, wood yard or mill. This definition of cut is used to the advantage by owners to qualify for Section 631(b) which is capital gains status that allows you to report at a lower tax rate than if it was reported as revenue. The owner must have ownership of the lumber long enough to qualify for this exemption, often at time it is felled, it is not long enough, but practical consideration for the time it was measured often means the holding period is met. Defintion of Owner: An owner is any taxpayer who has the right to cut and sell timber. If however, the contract includes stumpage fees, the cutter is simply performing a logging service and do not qualify as an owner. Definition of Product sales: When standing timber is cut, and the logs or products manufactured from them are sold, the entire proceeds must be reported as ordinary income (unless section 631a). Based on my crude understanding 631a does not apply since this is crown timber. The main point here is that Product sales are reported as Revenues by the AFA using the GAAP rule below.
What is GAAP rule the AFA uses to recognize timber revenue? Revenue from product and standing timber sales and forest renewal charges are recognized when the wood is delivered.
 

Question for MNR: What does delivered mean - is it to the mill? Or if not where?

This whole bullet is to qualify my assumption that the logger gets paid to cut wood, but the crown doesn't get to report it as revenue until it is milled which is why we have Accounts Receivables in the range of $4M. For clarification. The assumption here is "cut" is a definition the logging industry can use to its advantage which means merchantable wood owned by public interests is controlled by private enterprise. To be cross referenced with Pricing and Tenure issues.