Forest Management Public Summary. for. Two Trees Forestry

Transcription

1 Forest Management Public Summary for Two Trees Forestry Certification Code: SW-FM/COC-015 Date of Certification: January 1997 Date of Public Summary: August 2002, updated for 2003 This document was produced according to the guidelines of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the SmartWood Program. No part of the report should be published separately. Certifier: SmartWood Program 1 c/o Rainforest Alliance 65 Bleecker Street, 6 th Floor New York, New York U.S.A. TEL: (212) FAX: (212) info@smartwood.org Website: This certification was conducted in collaboration with the following member of the SmartWood Network: Northeast Natural Resource Center/ National Wildlife Federation (NNRC/NWF) 58 State Street Montpelier, VT TEL: (802) FAX: (802) palola@nwf.org 1 SmartWood is implemented worldwide by the nonprofit members of the SmartWood Network. The Network is coordinated by the Rainforest Alliance, an international nonprofit conservation organization. The Rainforest Alliance is the legally registered owner of the SmartWood certification mark and label. All uses of the SmartWood label for promotion must be authorized by SmartWood headquarters. SmartWood certification applies to forest management practices only and does not represent endorsement of other product qualities (e.g., financial performance to investors, product function, etc.). SmartWood is accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for the certification of natural forest management, tree plantations and chain of custody.

2 To earn SmartWood certification, a forest management operation must undergo an on-site field assessment. This Public Summary Report summarizes information contained in the initial assessment report, which is produced based on information collected during the field assessment. Annual audits are conducted to monitor the forest management operation s activities, to review the operation s progress toward meeting their certification conditions, and to verify compliance with the SmartWood standards. Addenda providing the updated information obtained during these annual audits are included as attachments to the Public Summary Report. 1. GENERAL SUMMARY 1.1. Name and Contact Information Source Name: Two Trees Forestry Contact Person: Harold Burnett Address: 167 Main Street, Winthrop, ME Tel: (207) Fax: (207) info@twotreesforestry.com 1.2. General Background A. Type of operation Two Trees Forestry is a private forestry consulting business situated in central Maine and servicing an area within about a 45-minute radius of their offices in Winthrop and Orono, ME. They provide primarily forest management planning and timber harvesting administration services for small and medium-size landowners; however, they have a couple of clients with holdings of more than 1,000 acres. Two Trees Forestry (TTF) currently has two employees, but will soon hire an additional forester. B. Years in operation The company was established in 1984 by Mark Miller with an office in Coopers Mills, ME. Harold Burnett joined the company in 1988 and became the owner in C. Date first certified Two Trees Forestry first became certified in D. Latitude and longitude of certified operation The Two Trees Forestry headquarters office in Winthrop, ME is located at N, W Forest and Management System A. Forest type and land use history TTF manages land comprised of a variety of temperate forest types indigenous to the northeastern U.S. including eastern white pine, transitional hardwoods, northern hardwoods, hemlock, early succession white birch/poplar, and combinations of these species. The forest is characterized as the Acadian Forest, which includes elements of the boreal forest and the northern and temperate hardwood forests. Although a couple of small plantations happen to be on management property, TTF rarely utilizes artificial regeneration on properties it manages; relying instead on natural regeneration. Nearly all forestland in the pool has had a long record of human use including agriculture and timber harvesting. Timber management by TTF has concentrated largely on improvement cuts and intermediate thinnings.

3 B. Size of management unit and area in production forest, conservation, and/or restoration TTF has 56 privately owned properties (6,028 acres) that it manages for individuals that range in size from 10 acres to 466 acres; however, most properties are about acres in size. They manage 22 parcels for institutions (9,617 acres) that range in size from 55 acres to 2,641 acres with an average of about 250 to 300 acres. TTF manages lands for 10 families (1,583 acres) with parcels ranging in size from 37 to 712 acres with an average size of about 100 acres. C. Annual allowable cut and/or annual harvest covered by management plan With the exception of property managed for Bessey (1,718 acres) and The Nature Conservancy at Concord River, no properties currently managed in the pool are larger than 500 acres. Although TTF groups these properties together in a pool of certified lands, each property represents an individual landowner with independent objectives for their land. In addition, there is no contractual agreement with landowners binding them to TTF for future services. It is impractical to consider an annual allowable cut on these smaller acreages; however, TTF management plans states that harvest levels should not exceed volumes grown. TTF has made an effort to establish annual allowable cut information on Bessey lands using growth projections based on soils an indicator of potential productivity. TTF will not prescribe harvests on Bessey lands for a five-year period to compensate for somewhat aggressive harvest rates prior to their management. TTF began managing these lands in 2001 and will require time for analysis of productivity to establish an annual cut rate. D. General description of details and objectives of the management plan/system TTF manages land for a mature forest landscape. Their goal is to replicate initial stand conditions, i.e., composition and structure that include important ecological features found in the pre-settlement forest. They are generally not making regeneration cuts, but instead make primarily intermediate thinnings. Management plans call for managing the majority of properties for a wide range of values, both timber and nontimber. Forest management goals for most properties are to produce large diameter (20-24 DBH) trees under mostly uneven-age conditions. Harvesting generally features individual and groups selections to create stands with two to three age-classes. TTF has been attempting to update management plans for all properties in the pool since many were developed prior to TTF s certification. Generally, TTF will perform a plan update when a new harvest is anticipated for an existing property. All plans are based upon a forest inventory established along transect lines using variable plots and a 20 BAF timber cruising prism. Data are analyzed across all stands on a property to develop a single volume table by species present. Prescriptions are developed from inventory information and all stands are marked prior to any harvesting activity. TTF continues to use several of the loggers that it contracted with back in 1988, when the company first started. Criteria for selecting logging contractors includes demonstrated skill in the woods, honesty, ability to listen, and ability to merchandise wood well in the yard. Loggers must be insured and have completed the Certified Logging Professional program. The roster of loggers used by TTF is primarily individual or small hand-crews with small cable skidders (JD 440). They have used a cut-to-length harvester and forwarder on several recent operations. Past relationships with logging contractors have been based on stumpage sales; however, TTF has been moving toward service contracts where TTF markets the wood.

4 1.4. Environmental and Socioeconomic Context Small private landowners own and manage a majority of the forested land in New England. Land ownership in southern Maine fits this general pattern, while much of the northern part of the state is owned by relatively few large landowners. A 1982 survey of Maine landowners revealed that 96 percent of the state s timberland was owned by 180,900 landowners. Forty four percent of the private owners hold more than 10 acres each. These owners account for 98 percent of the private timberland in Maine. Forty nine percent of the private ownerships are held by the forest industry. While benefits other than income from timber were listed as most important for a majority of the owners surveyed, sixty one percent of the private timberland is owned by landowners whose primary goal is timber production. The 1982 survey revealed that the coastal region of Maine has the greatest concentration of small forest ownerships. An estimated 74,600 landowners individually own less than 10 acres of forestland. Collectively, the forested land in these small ownerships comprises 5 percent of the private timberland in the region. Less than one third of the region s timberland is in ownerships of greater than 5,000 acres. Professionals, executives, and white-collar workers hold thirty one percent of Maine s individually owned forestland. According to the survey, these owners hold forestland primarily for reasons other than timber production, although they are not generally opposed to harvesting timber. Retired owners account for 17 percent of the individual owners. TTF s management base in mid-coast and central Maine encompasses numerous parcels scattered throughout the region, which are generally owned by smaller non-industrial landowners. TTF s clients are a diversified group of owners with a variety of forest management objectives. For a number of TTF s clients, revenue generation and forest product production are secondary to other ownership objectives. According to a recent USDA Forest Service Inventory of Maine s forest resources, 90 percent of the state million acres is forested. 96 percent of the forested land is classified as timberland, 2 percent as unproductive, and 2 percent as either reserve or urban land. Northern hardwoods and spruce-fir, the most common cover types, respectively cover 6.4 million acres and ~ 6 million acres. Other common cover types include aspen/white birch (2.2. million acres), and white pine/red pine (1.2 million acres). Red spruce is the leading species in saw timber volume, followed by white pine, sugar maple and northern white cedar. The average annual net growth was 23.9 cubic feet per acre per year between 1982 and In 1995, the statewide average growing stock was estimated at 1,234 cubic feet per acre, which represents a 6.8 percent decrease from 1982 inventory levels. The statewide average for saw timber volume decreased to 2,773 board feet per acre, a 4.2 percent reduction from 1982 levels. While softwood growing stock (primarily balsam fir and red spruce) declined 6.8 percent during this period, the hardwood growing stock (red maple, sugar maple, and beech) increased by 13.5 percent Products Produced and Chain of custody A. Species and volumes covered by the certificate Table 1: Certified Production Species Scientific name Volume (m 3 per yr) Product Aspen Populus spp Pulpwood, sawlogs Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Pulpwood, sawlogs Hemlock Tsuga spp Pulpwood, sawlogs

5 Red Oak Quercus rubra Sawlogs, veneer Red Birch Betula nigra Sawlogs, veneer Red Maple Acer rubrum Sawlogs, veneer Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Sawlogs, veneer Spruce Picea spp. Pulpwood, sawlogs White Ash Fraxinus Sawlogs americana Yellow Birch Betula alleghaniensis Sawlogs, veneer B. Description of current and planned processing capacity TTF does not have any processing capacity of its own and at the time of the assessment, neither did any of the participating landowners. 2. CERTIFICATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS 1.1. Assessment Dates February 2002 Stakeholder public notices distribution starts ( , FAX, newspaper and mail) February 2002 Initial team planning March 12-13, 2002 Field assessment at Two Trees Forestry March 14, 2002 Begin report write-up and continue stakeholder interactions ( s and April 29, 2002 interviews) April 29, 2002 Draft report to Two Trees Forestry for initial review & factchecking/comment May 16, 2002 Comments received from Two Trees Forestry May 24, 2002 Comment back from peer reviewers June 5, 2002 Final draft submitted to SW Certification Committee Certification Contract signed and received by SmartWood 1.2. Assessment Team and Peer Reviewers Mike Cline, Ph.D. Forest Biology, Maine-certified Forester Jeff Severson, M.S. Botany, Consulting Ecologist Two different peer reviews were sought for this assessment. The peer reviewers included: 1. A forester, B.S. Forest Utilization, with broad experience in New England forests working for landowners of varying sizes and objectives. He has served as an auditor for several certified forestland annual audits. 2. A field naturalist, M.S. in Botany, who specializes in landscape natural history, integrated forest planning, forest ecology, and ornithology. He has served as an assessor or peer reviewer on several forestland assessments Assessment Process The assessment team met at TTF s office on March 12 for a presentation by the RM on TTF s background and mission, management philosophy, systems and procedures, and a description of TTF s forestlands and the other property in the certified pool. The team began to set a schedule for the next two days days. Prior to this meeting the team had begun to identify the characteristics of sites that they needed to visit, and with TTF s comprehensive list of the properties the team was able to determine priority sites for field visits. These sites included lands that had a range of harvest histories (with a focus on recently completed operations), various

6 harvesting systems, streams, wetlands and hydrological challenges, sites that had not been included in previous Smartwood assessments or audits, and properties that represented the diversity of size and challenges managed by TTF. Background information on the properties was brought into the field. The team spent several hours in TTF s office reviewing office procedures and resources related to their operations and record keeping. The team performed several follow up calls with stakeholders to this assessment process. The final draft report was reviewed by TTF and two independent peer reviewers. The certification decision was taken by SmartWood headquarters. This was completed after review of comments made on the draft report by operation and peer reviewers. Table 2. Summary of Forest Areas Considered by SmartWood Assessors Forest/Block Name Total Area in Acres Assessment Site Philbrick 72 Recently harvested area, wetlands, stream crossing Kravitz 250 Recently harvested area, wetlands Hidden Valley Camp 289 Recently harvested area, wetlands Gousse 211 Discussed riparian areas Alford Lake Camp 415 Discussed riparian areas TNC- Bear Paw Tract 6200 Management plan reviewed. No sites visited as no management activities under TTF yet. McLaughlin 712 Recently harvested area, wetlands, stream crossing, steep slopes TOTALS 8, Guidelines Two Trees Forestry s certification assessment was conducted using the National Review Draft: Forest Certification Standards for New England and New York, prepared by the Northeast Region Working Group, April To obtain a copy of these guidelines contact SmartWood headquarters at the Goodwin Baker Building, 65 Millet Street, suite 201, Richmond, VT (802) tel, (802) fax, or info@smartwood.org 1.5. Stakeholder consultation process and results The purpose of the stakeholder consultation strategy for this assessment was threefold: 1) to ensure that the public is aware of and informed about the assessment process and its objectives; 2) to assist the field assessment team in identifying potential issues; and, 3) to provide diverse opportunities for the public to discuss and act upon the findings of the assessment. This process is not just stakeholder notification, but wherever possible, detailed and meaningful stakeholder interaction. The process of stakeholder interaction does not stop after the field visits,

7 or for that matter, after even a certification decision is made. SmartWood welcomes, at any time, comments on certified operations and such comments often provide a basis for field auditing. In the case of Two Trees Forestry prior to the actual assessment process, a public consultation stakeholder document was developed and distributed by , FAX and mail. Through input from TTF, SmartWood and assessment team members an initial list of stakeholders was developed and public announcements were distributed to them. This list also provided a basis for the assessment team to select people for interviews (in person or by telephone or through ). A list of stakeholders that were notified, and those interviewed, is available at the end of this public summary. Issues Identified Through Stakeholder Comments and Public Meetings The stakeholder consultation activities were organized to give participants the opportunity to provide comments according to general categories of interest based upon the assessment criteria. The table below summarizes the issues identified by the assessment team with a brief discussion of each based upon specific interview and/or public meeting comments. Table 3: Stakeholder Comments FSC Principle Stakeholder Comments SmartWood Response P1: FSC No comments given. Commitment/ Legal Compliance P2: Tenure & Use No comments given. Rights & Responsibilities P3 Indigenous No comments given. Peoples Rights P4: Community No comments given. Relations & Workers Rights P5: Benefits from No comments given. the Forest P6: Environmental Impact Stakeholders representing conservation interests were impressed with TTF s approach to developing a sound management and stewardship approach that would achieve multiple ownership goals, including conservation objectives. Supports the team s findings in criterion 6.3. Other comments indicated that the frequency of TTF contact with the Maine Natural Areas Program regarding the potential for R,T, & E species or habitat could be improved. Supports the team s findings in criterion 6.2. P7: Management Plan Concerns were expressed that TTF could improve its practices for protecting water quality in some instances. A conservation stakeholder felt that TTF did an excellent job in preparing a detailed management plan that met the needs of the conservation organization. No comments given. P8: Monitoring & Assessment P9: Maintenance of No comments given Not necessary Supports the team s findings in criteria 6.5 and 5.5. Supports the team s findings during the assessment and in finding 7.1.

8 High Conservation Value Forest P10 - Plantations No comments given. 3. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1. General Discussion of Findings Table 4: Findings by FSC Principle Principle/Subject Area P1: FSC Commitment and Legal Compliance P2: Tenure & Use Rights & Responsibilities P3 Indigenous Peoples Rights P4: Community Relations & Workers Rights P5: Benefits from the Forest P6: Environmental Impact P7: Management Plan P8: Monitoring & Assessment P9: Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forest Strengths TTF adheres to all federal, state and municipal regulations. TTF has made a clear commitment to FSC s P&C in policy and practice as it has participated in FSC certification for more than 5 years. TTF works with landowners to ensure that customary use rights of local communities are accommodated during active management periods. TTF regularly notifies abutters during pre-harvest planning. None of the lands in the certified pool are owned, or claimed, by indigenous peoples. TTF holds field days to educate landowners about forestry issues, and TTF staff are active in numerous community and professional groups around forestry issues. TTF -supervised harvests leave little utilizable waste on site and show low levels of damage to residual stands. TTF is focused on identifying opportunities for FSC certified products. TTF does not use any biological control agents or genetically modified organisms. TTF does not use any exotic plant species. TTF has a careful policy outlining the process by which chemical use may be considered. TTF s maps are of excellent quality and routinely updated as more information about a parcel becomes available. Management plans are periodically revised. All loggers must be Certified Logging Professionals that work on TTF jobs. The results of monitoring are incorporated into management plans within a short timeframe of changes identified. There are no high conservation value forests identified in the proposed pool. Weaknesses TTF must ensure that property boundaries are clearly marked or identified when conducting harvests near property boundaries. In a few instances, concerns about protecting water quality and aquatic features were not placed above making a harvest job work. All contractors should have training in forest management Best Management Practices, and an evaluation procedure should be developed that ensures any water quality problems that may arise are remedied immediately. TTF should access available resources to help identify rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitats, and uncommon types of natural communities, or pursue additional training to enhance their ability to identify these sites.

9 P10 - Plantations Plantations currently in the pool are being moved towards natural forest management. An old field is being planted in a forest step to return it to a forested state Certification Decision Based on a thorough field review, analysis and compilation of findings by this SmartWood assessment team Two Trees Forestry is recommended to receive joint FSC/SmartWood Forest Management and Chain of Custody (FM/COC) Certification with the stipulated conditions. In order to maintain certification, Two Trees Forestry will be audited annually on-site and required to remain in compliance with the FSC principles and criteria as further defined by regional guidelines developed by SmartWood or the FSC. Two Trees Forestry will also be required to fulfil the conditions as described below. Experts from SmartWood will review continued forest management performance and compliance with the conditions described in this report, annually during scheduled and random audits Conditions and Recommendations Conditions are verifiable actions that will form part of the certification agreement that Two Trees Forestry will be expected to fulfill at the time of the first audit or as required in the condition. Each condition has an explicit time period for completion. Non-compliance with conditions will lead to de-certification. Conditions Condition 1: Within one year of certification, Two Trees Forestry shall develop a strict policy ensuring that all employees, contractors, and landowners understand that water quality will not be compromised for any purpose; all contractors shall have training in forest management Best Management Practices; and an evaluation procedure shall be developed that ensures any water quality problems that may arise are remedied immediately. (Criteria 5.5 and 6.5) Condition 2: Within two years of certification, Two Trees Forestry shall contact the Maine Natural Areas Program and review all current properties and future additions to the pool for the presence of rare, threatened and endangered species and potential habitats for such species. Two Trees Forestry shall create a protocol for documenting information gathered from the MNAP (i.e. noted on TTF maps or amended in the forest management plan). (Criterion 6.2) Condition 3: Within one year of certification, Two Trees Forestry shall make publicly available upon request a summary of the primary elements of the management plans for the properties included in the certified pool and a broad description of the properties in the certified pool. If a request is made for non-proprietary information on a specific property this may need to be disclosed, but need not be prepared in the absence of such a request. (Criterion 7.4) Condition 4: Within three months of certification, Two Trees Forestry shall create a document which outlines the procedures and rules for entry and exit from the certified pool. (Section 5) There are 11 nonbinding recommendations.

10 SmartWood Certification Annual Addendum to the Public Summary for Two Trees Forestry, Audit Process A. Audit year: 2003 B. Dates of Audit: May 5, 2003 C. Audit Team: Michael L. Cline, Ph.D. Maine Licensed Professional Forester. Team Member on three SmartWood Forest Management Assessments. D. Audit Overview: A one-day audit was performed consisting of office consultation, review of the results of the past assessment, discussion of changes in the pool of certified lands, and field examination of a subset of the certifiedlands pool (four properties) including review of copies of management plans for each. Site selection was the auditor s choice and focused upon harvests performed since the assessment. Specific attention was directed toward harvest sites that included BMPs for water crossings, sloping land, and new road construction. Should reference FSC sampling requirements for group cert- total # properties, # sampled during assessment, # sampled during audit, etc. E. Sites Visited: Roy Krout, 83 acres, Fayette, ME harvest; water bars/seeding Bob Siekman, 460 acres, Hartford/Buckfield, ME harvest The Nature Conservancy (Stonehill), 363 acres, Hebron, ME - new road, water crossings The Nature Conservancy (Dragon Meadow), 90 acres, Denmark, ME harvest F. Personnel Interviewed: The following people were consulted during this audit: Person interviewed Harold Burnett Jeff Andrews Position/Organization Owner/Two Trees Forestry Employee G. Documentation reviewed: Management plans (Wengren, Krout, Siekman, TNC Hebron and Denmark) 2002 SmartWood reassessment report 2001 SmartWood Audit Report 2000 SmartWood Audit Report 2002 Harvest Volumes & Values Pool of Certified Landowners List Forestland Stewardship Policy TTF s Procedures for FSC Certified Pool of Lands

11 1.2 General Audit Findings and Conclusions TTF has continued to display professionalism in the practice of forest management on certified lands and has adhered closely to the FSC principles in its operations. Conditions put in place after the past assessment have been addressed adequately and in the spirit of improving land stewardship. Since the re-assessment performed last year, TTF has added several new properties to the certified pool, including 6,200 acres owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). A five-year forest management agreement was entered into with TNC. The forester on staff that was employed at the time of the last assessment left TTF in August 2002 and has been replaced by Jeff Andrews. TTF is now doing much more of their own marketing of timber harvested and has resulted in a better financial return to both the landowner and TTF. In order to build a better financial foundation under the company, TTF raised its rates during the last year. This has taken away some of the financial pressures on the business and has enabled the company to offer major medical insurance and a retirement plan. Two Trees Forestry has arranged with local naturalists to initiate periodic naturalist training trips for staff. Trips help staff better understand how to identify and protect unique flora, fauna, and natural areas. Several workshops have occurred and more are anticipated. New features that have been added to the management plan template since the re-assessment last year are: 1) background information on the property and 2) biodiversity and area landscape features. This last section involves contacting ME IF&W to determine if critical or significant habitats exist on or nearby the property, reports of any rare or endangered species to the Natural Areas Program, mapping of any waterways associated with the woodlot, description of important habitat features, use of the woodlot by wildlife, and wildlife sightings. If habitat features are lacking, are they available on nearby lands. In addition, the availability of snags and cavity trees is inventoried by size-class and the relative amount of coarse woody material is noted. The plan also describes the general landscape features of the woodlot in relation to the landscape within a 10-mile radius, e.g., amounts of forest and fields, watersheds, development, and protected lands. 1.3 Status of Conditions and Corrective Action Requests (CARs) A. Compliance Summary of Previously Issued Conditions and CARs Condition 1: Met/Ongoing. Condition 2: Due in 2004 Condition 3: Closed (2003) Condition 4: Closed (2003) B. New CARs Issued in this Audit None