www.AlgonquinAdventures.comAFA Advisory Group - Concern #3 - Defined Forest Areawww.AlgonquinAdventures.com

February 15, 2007

My concerns over the Defined Forest Area, that I have listed in the December 8th remarks (below), were not addressed at either the Jan. 8th-9th or Feb.12th-13th meetings.

However, at this latest (February) meeting, the representative of Eco-Watch officially registered his intension to address this and other issues in a formal presentation at a later meeting.

I'm hoping that Eco-Watch will incorporate this Defined Forest Area issue into their upcoming old-growth presentation(s), since they have the natural science credentials and are formally representing and advising in that field.


December 8, 2006

Having checked several sources, I do recognize the following three points as "given" ...

  • MNR has top administrative authority over the Algonquin Park Management Unit (763,316 hectares).
  • MNR issues 5 year licences to the A.F.A.
  • MNR also determines the province's Forest Management Units, specifying Unit #451 (Algonquin Park Forest) as being comprised of the entirety of Algonquin Park for purposes of MNR's over-riding authority .

    However, to designate (for sustainability compliancy purposes) all of the Forest Management Unit as the AFA's Defined Forest Area could result in the following ...

  • Provincially prescribed retention areas and old growth requirements could be drawn from within those zones outside the RU zone's actual production forest area.
  • Such consideration of all production-excluded zones within the DFA would result in a progressively smaller requirement for old growth allocations within the RU zone .. as more of the excluded zones' tree stands naturally grew older.
  • The long-term consolidation of old growth requirements in the protected zones would provide the opportunity for more and more of the RU zone's old growth to be logged.
  • Eventually, an overly-mature protected zone would come to exist within the protected zones .. surrounded by a large perpetually premature logged forest in the RU zone.

    This senario fits right in with the question expressed earlier ... "why wouldn't they want to include the unique forest areas of the protectectively zoned areas within the DFA, especially when they helped them fulfill the compliancy requirements for unique forest areas?"


    December 7, 2006

    On November 20th, prior to the before-meeting dinner, I raised the question of what should comprise the Defined Forest Area (DFA) to Herb Bax (process facilitator and President of KBM Forestry Consultants). I pointed out that the advisory group's very own Terms of Reference stated that it is the Recreation/Utilization zone, comprising approximately 75% of Algonquin Park, that is managed as the Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit (the forest). I asked him why shouldn't the Algonquin Park Forest Management Unit be the Defined Forest Area (DFA)?

    I pointed out to him that the Forest Management Plan Summary explained (Section 4.0 par. 1) that the Algonquin Park Management Unit is 763,316 hectares in size, of which forest management occurs on 481,214 hectares of production forest area in the recreation/utilization zone (which itself totals 594,860 hectares).

    The larger area of the entire park is just that .. 763,316 hectares .. the park's total area as managed by the MNR and Parks Ontario.

    The lesser area is the land area within the park's recreation/utilization zone (77.9% of the park) that the Algonquin Forestry Authority (AFA) exercises forest management (63% of the park).

    I went on to ask what base area which should be used to determine rates and factors for the statistical analysis of AFA forest management? And, what should be the base area according to the CSA standards' own requirement?

    Unfortunately, my questions weren't answered directly. Rather, I was told that it was typical practice in other juristictions to include large non-productive and protected areas within the base areas of defined forest areas. Herb's position was that it was their prerogative to define the forest area. He asked me why wouldn't they want to include the unique forest areas of the protectectively zoned areas within the DFA, especially when they helped them fulfill the compliancy requirements for unique forest areas?

    At the time, I thought perhaps it was just myself who had difficulty accepting Herb's perspective on this issue. However, later in the formal meeting, I was to find out that my concern over this point was shared by others.