WHITE PAPER: Verifiable Auditing I Monitoring Program Sustainable Forestry Washington State Implementation Committee (SIC)

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "WHITE PAPER: Verifiable Auditing I Monitoring Program Sustainable Forestry Washington State Implementation Committee (SIC)"

Transcription

1 Sustainable Forestry Washington State Implementation Committee (SIC) The Sustainable Forestry is a comprehensive certification scheme that uses a system of principles, objectives and performance measures developed by industry and non-industry stakeholders. The SFI objectives aim to balance the perpetual growing and harvesting of trees with the long-term protection of wildlife, plants, soil and water quality. The program is based on nine principles that address economic, environmental, cultural and legal issues, in addition to continuous improvement in sustainable practices. Compliance to the SFI program ensures that participants are meeting sustainability policies and objectives, while assuring the public that participants' forests and procurement practices are being managed in accordance with the standard. Those embracing the SFI program must balance environmental compatibility of sound forestry operations with social responsibility and economic viability. SFI compliance verification and certification procedures measure a participant's conformance with the SFI Standard. Land management organizations and primary producers must implement the SFI Standard on all their operations to achieve certification. The SFI Standard undergoes review every five years. The current standard is valid from 2005 through A typical review of the Standard takes over a year and includes two public consultation periods and regional in-person workshops, in which all stakeholders are invited to participate. You can access a summary of the changes to the SFI Standard at: htto:// One of the objectives in the SFI Standard deals with the procurement of wood fiber from sources other than participant-owned lands. An Indicator under Objective 8 requires participants who procure wood from outside sources to have a verifiable monitoring system in place to evaluate the results of promoting reforestation and promotion and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) across the wood and fiber supply area and monitor the use of BMPs by wood producers supplying the Program Participant and use that information to set goals to improve, over time, rates of BMP compliance. The new SFI procurement requirements have generated significant discussion among program participants within the state of Washington. Approaches and strategies for meeting the new Objective 8 requirements have been discussed at a number of SFI Implementation Committee (SIC) meetings. After thorough review, and meetings with Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) representatives, the SIC feels there is sufficient evidence to conclude that DNR monitoring and enforcement activities, conducted to support the Washington Forest Practices Act represent a "verifiable auditing or monitoring system" that yields information accessible to all SFI Page 10(7

2 Sustainable Forestry participants in the state, and can constitute compliance with the SFI Standard in that aspect. Those monitoring and enforcement activities are described as follows: The DNR is responsible for the administration of the Washington Forest Practices Act, including the monitoring of compliance and effectiveness of the rules. Monitoring efforts can be divided into three categories: Routine Inspection and Enforcement, Compliance Monitoring, and Effectiveness Monitoring. These program elements identify the level of forest operations in compliance and utilize that information towards the goal of continual improvement. Required changes to the program may include clarification of rule language, improved administration of the rules, additional education and training, and/or rule modification. Routine Enforcement DNR employs 47 Forest Practices Foresters (FPFs), stationed in 6 regional offices throughout the state. Each year the DNR receives and approves over 6,000 Forest Practice Applications (FPAs). The actual level of detail required for each FPA is dependent upon the potential impact of the proposed forest practices activities on the environment and can include preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the State of Washington's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). DNR utilizes a screening process to determine the potential resource impacts of the FPA. Based upon that process, each application is assigned to one of four classes. The class of forest practice determines the amount of pre-harvest field review that is required. Many Class III and all Class IV Special FPAs are field reviewed by the FPFs prior to FPA approval. Through a series of inspections and site visits, the FPFs work with landowners and operators to facilitate proper implementation or compliance with the forest practices rules and the approved FPAs. In addition, the DNR has created a Small Forest Landowner Office (SFLO) to assist small forest landowners in implementing the Forest Practice Rules. The DNR has combined the SFLO and the Forest Stewardship staff to provide additional focus on assisting small forest landowners. The SFLO serves as a resource and focal point for small forest landowner concerns and policies. Currently DNR funds ten SFLO staff positions at the Olympia headquarters dedicated solely to assist small forest landowners. In addition to the headquarters staff, DNR provides funding for eight positions working out of the regional offices to assist small landowners. Not all operations can be inspected by FPFs, therefore operations are prioritized to determine inspection schedules and frequencies. FPFs are encouraged to focus their efforts where there is the highest risk to public resources while at the same time monitoring overall compliance across the landscape. Once approved, the DNR prioritizes their enforcement and monitoring activities based on potential resource impacts (FPA class). Most Class IV Special applications are monitored during or following harvest activities. The DNR has targeted a compliance review of 50% of Page 2 of 7

3 Sustainable Forestry Class III applications that have associated riparian harvest and 100% compliance checks on Class IV Special applications. When rules are not properly implemented, enforcement programs are intended to ensure compliance with regulations in order to prevent damage to public resources. The State of Washington has established a set of education and enforcement steps, which progress through informal conferences, Notices to Comply (NTC), Stop Work Orders (SWO), civil or criminal penalties, Notice of Intent to Disapprove (NOID), financial assurances, and injunctions. Records of Forest Practices enforcement documents including: Stop Work Orders (SWO) and Notices to Comply (NTC), civil penalties and Notice of Intent to Disapprove (NOID) issued can be requested from the DNR Olympia office through the Public Disclosure process. These requested documents can be queried to gauge the level of compliance. Civil penalties issued over the past three years and currently valid NOIDs can be viewed on the DNR webpage. Not all Notices to Comply are violations. The DNR uses the NTC as a method of documenting requested changes to the FPA after the approval date. BMP Compliance Monitorina While inspections and enforcement documents are valuable tools, a statistically reliable sample of BMP compliance is needed to determine if the compliance program is producing desired results and to identify methods to improve compliance. In support of this effort, the DNR has implemented a Forest Practice Compliance Survey to evaluate compliance with the forest practice rules and to determine the level of voluntary and cooperative efforts that benefit public resources. In 1991, the Field Implementation Committee (FIC) reviewed 191 forest practice applications (FPAs) to determine compliance with forest practice rules. Forest Practice Applications were randomly selected for compliance assessment of a range of forest practices activities including: road construction, timber harvest, in-stream work, chemical application, voluntary efforts, protection of archaeological and cultural resources and conversions. Compliance for each specific forest practice ranged from a low of 41% (road maintenance) to a high of 86% (road construction). In 1993, DNR conducted a statewide assessment of FPAs relative to reforestation requirements and found very high conformance levels. Much of the information that resulted from these surveys was used to inform development of the Forest and Fish rules approved and implemented in DNR is mandated by rule (4) to conduct compliance monitoring and to report findings to the Forest Practices Board. Beginning late in 2003, DNR accelerated the development of a new framework for compliance monitoring. This effort culminated in a 2004 statewide preliminary assessment of fish bearing streams. Based on the 2004 effort, DNR began to develop a more structured approach to compliance Page 3 of 7

4 Sustainable Forestry monitoring. A Compliance Monitoring Program Design ( completed along with protocols for field data collection and field forms to gather specific information based on rule language for both statewide riparian and road activities. An interim report on the 2006 field season resulted in the following statistics: 1. Compliant with the rules for 278 activities reviewed: a. 224 of the 278 site specific activities (81%) are at compliance. This number includes 30 activities the field teams determined exceeded the rules. i. 93 of the 126 Riparian activities statewide (74%) are at compliance ii. 131 of the 152 Road activities statewide (86%) are at compliance. 2. Out of compliance for 278 activities reviewed a. 54 of the 278 activities (19%) were out of compliance i. 33 of the 126 Riparian activities (26%) were out of compliance ii. 21 of the 152 Road activities (14%) were out of compliance Not all infractions of Forest Practices regulations have the same effect on public resources. For instance, cutting down half the trees in the Core Zone of a RMZ generally has the potential to cause significantly more environmental damage than removing one or two trees from the Outer Zone. It is beyond the scope of the compliance monitoring program to quantify resource damage. However, the DNR wanted to have some indication of the relative seriousness of non-compliance activities which could help focus the agency's future day-to-day compliance work. The field teams (comprised of experienced professional hydrologists, foresters, geologists, and biologists) demonstrated that the use of professional judgment that is used in everyday evaluations of both the natural variability of nature and how to manage the environment in relation to forestry can be useful in putting out-of-compliance decisions in perspective. The field teams utilized their professional expertise and judgment to make these evaluations on the relative level of non-compliance for each out-of-compliance determination. We decided to attach the following "categories" for the level of non-compliance: a. Low or trivial: Unimportant, insignificant, trifling, commonplace. Minor impacts of short duration over a small area. This category could be compared to the first level of DNR regulatory protocol which would include a phone call to the landowner to let him/her know that DNR found a couple of trees harvested in an Inner or Outer Zone. Examples include: i. Evidence of slight sediment delivery that does not appear to be persistent. ii. A few trees cut in the Inner or Outer Zone of the RMZ of the same or lesser ecological significance as the remaining RMZ trees. b. Medium or Apparent: Readily understood, evident, obvious. Potential impacts to resources, but generally of moderate effect. The level of DNR Page 4 of7

5 Sustainable Forestry regulatory protocol would consist of a Notice to Comply which would indicate to the landowner that there could be some mitigation required for this level of non-compliance. Examples include: i. Required leave trees for the Outer Zone trees not attained. ii. Culvert sizing is questionable, but potential impact to resources is iii. not readily apparent. Soil stabilization has not occurred and there may be a potential for future impacts. c. High or Major. Greater in size, amount, number or extent. Damage to public resources is evident or the potential for damage is high. (These include situations normally referred to the Region for enforcement). The comparative DNR regulatory protocol would most probably consist of a Stop Work Order or perhaps a Civil Penalty. Examples include: i. Harvest in the Core Zone. ii. iii. iv. Harvest in areas not delineated on the FPA. Roads built without an FPA. Evidence of direct sediment delivery to typed water that appears to have been persistent. No consensus: This was used when the compliance monitoring team could not agree on the compliancelevel. Whenthat occurred,the ForestPracticesForestermakesthe determination. It is important to note that these out-of-compliance levels do not have statistical validity nor should they be used to excuse Forest Practices activities that violate the rules or the approved application. This rating system results showed that 46% of the out of compliance determinations were trivial (low), 37% were apparent (medium) and 2% were major (high). [Reminder: The out of compliance rating was 14% for roads and 26% for riparian harvest.] The teams did not reach a consensus for 15% of the out of compliance calls. Although the process was not rigorous in its entirety in evaluating these out-of-compliance determinations due to some inconsistencies among field teams, the information for the first field season, it is important to notes that that "major" out of compliance levels is small. The Compliance Monitoring program will continue to assess riparian and road activities for the 2007/08 biennium along with the addition of rules pertaining to Small Forest Landowner parcels and Alternate Plans. The goal will be to assess a sufficient number of samples of all rule activities to provide statistically valid representation to determine if the rules are being implemented properly on the ground. Page 50(7

6 Sustainable Forestry Effectiveness Monitorina Adaptive Management is included in the Forest Practices rules as a formal process to monitor and assess implementation of rules to determine if those rules achieve the desired resource protection objectives. This formal and structured process serves to: evaluate the current resource status; evaluate the effectiveness of roles and guidance in protection, maintenance, and enhancement of habitat necessary to meet established resource goals and objectives; for making adjustments to forest practices on a regional or statewide basis, and for requiring mitigation, where necessary, to achieve resource objectives. The State Forest Practices Board (FPB) adopted an adaptive management program in concurrence with the Forest and Fish Report (FFR) legislation. The purpose of this program is to "...provide science-based recommendations and technical information to assist the board in determining if and when it is necessary or advisable to adjust rules and guidance for aquatic resources to achieve resource goals and objectives." To provide the science needed to support adaptive management, the FPB established the Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Committee (CMER). CMER is responsible for designing and implementing a research and monitoring program to provide credible scientific information to support the FFR adaptive management program. CMER has developed a work plan organized by FFR "rule groups". A rule group is a set of forest practices rules relating either to a particular resource, such as wetlands, or fish-bearing streams, or to a particular type of forest practice, such as road construction and maintenance. These rule group divisions provide a useful framework for the research and monitoring strategy. Critical research and monitoring questions are identified at the rule group level to address information gaps related to scientific uncertainty and resource risk associated with the rules. Once the research and monitoring questions are identified, programs are developed to address them. Programs consist of one or more related projects designed to strategically address a set of related scientific questions. CMER has budgeted approximately $3.4 million in fiscal year 2008 to conduct research and monitoring activities. Some examples of the types of programs and projects in the fiscal year 2008 work plan include: 1. Type N (nonfish habitat) Streams Rule Group. Determine how riparian stands and the inputs and functions they provide respond to management practices and the level of protection provided by the prescriptions. Determine the habitat utilization patterns of stream associated amphibians and their response to riparian management practices. Determine the effects of Type N riparian management practices on sediment, large woody debris, temperature and nutrient regimes in downstream fish-bearing streams Page 60'7

7 Sustainable Forestry 2. Type F (fish habitat) Streams Rule Group. Assess the current riparian stand and stream conditions on Type F streams across the eastside to evaluate the likelihood that the prescriptions will move stands to within the range of natural variability. Assess uncertainty regarding strategies and prescriptions for managing hardwood dominated stands. Determine the effectiveness of the eastside Type F shade prescriptions in meeting stream temperature requirements 3. Extensive Monitoring Program. Determine the proportion of stream length on FFR lands meeting water quality standards for temperature, and how the proportion is changing over time as the prescriptions are implemented. What are current riparian stand attributes on FFR lands, and how are stand conditions changing over time as the FFR prescriptions are implemented 4. Unstable Slopes Rule Group. Determine if unstable landform prescriptions are reducing the rate of management-induced land sliding at the landscape scale. Determine if unstable landforms are being correctly and uniformly identified, and evaluated for potential hazard 5. Roads Rule Group. Determine if road prescriptions are effective at meeting sub-basin scale performance targets for sediment and water The Washington SIC is confident that the DNR monitoring efforts outlined above do, in fact, meet SFI program standards requiring that SFI participants have "a verifiable monitoring system in place to evaluate the results of promoting reforestation and promotion and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) across the wood and fiber supply area and monitor the use of BMPs by wood producers supplying the Program Participant and use that information to set goals to improve, over time, rates of BMP compliance". The SIC will conduct periodic reassessments in the future to maintain the validity of this conclusion. The following personnel agree this white paper represents an accurate description of the auditing,a.,ndmonitoring program in Washington State. \ r.. "IlL /fi' -I. S.~ uli/3 Stangell V - Lenny Young ( - '@SIC Chair DNR FforestPrac'tices Division Manager.3 J1 I 0& Date Page70f7

8