FM Audit report template

Jon Jickling

Description

Certified by: Forest Management SmartWood Headquarters 2008 Annual audit 65 Millet St. Suite 201 Richmond, VT 05477 USA Tel: [phone] Report for: Fax: [phone] www.smartwood.org Contact person: Jon Jickling [e-mail] Paul Smith's College in Audit Managed by: Paul Smiths, NY USA United States Regional Office 205 West Third Street, Suite B Northfield, MN 55057 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Contact person: Dave Bubser, US Regional Manager Email: [e-mail] Certificate code: SW-FM/CoC-000089 Kara Wires Auditors: Robert Bryan April 22, 2008 Audit Dates: August 13, 2008 October 1, 2008 Report Finalized: Steven McFarland Operation Contact: P.O. Box 265 Address: ACCREDITED Paul Smiths, NY 12970 FSC-ACC-004 © 1996 Forest Stewardship Council A.C. FM-06 April 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 3 2. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RESULTS ........ 3 2.1. AUDIT CONCLUSION ...... 3 2.2. CHANGES IN THE FOREST MANAGEMENT OF THE FME ............... 3 2.3. STAKEHOLDER ISSUES ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4. CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS .......................... 7 2.5. NEW CORRECTIVE ...

Informations

• Publié par: Orra
• Nombre de lectures: 97
• Langue: English

Extrait

Certified by:

SmartWood Headquarters

65 Millet St. Suite 201

Richmond, VT 05477 USA

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

www.smartwood.org

Contact person: Jon Jickling

[e-mail]

Audit Managed by:

United States Regional Office

205 West Third Street, Suite B

Northfield, MN 55057

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Contact person: Dave Bubser, US

Regional Manager

Email: [e-mail]

ACCREDITED

FSC-ACC-004

© 1996 Forest Stewardship Council A.C.

FM-06 April 2007

Forest Management

2008 Annual audit

Report for:

Paul Smith's College

in

Paul Smiths, NY USA

Certificate code:

SW-FM/CoC-000089

Auditors:

Kara Wires

Robert Bryan

Audit Dates:

April 22, 2008

August 13, 2008

Report Finalized:

October 1, 2008

Operation Contact:

Steven McFarland

Address:

P.O. Box 265

Paul Smiths, NY 12970

SmartWood Forest Management Annual Audit Report

Page 2 of 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 3

2.

AUDIT FINDINGS AND RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1.

A

UDIT CONCLUSION

...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.

C

HANGES IN THE FOREST MANAGEMENT OF THE

FME

............................................................................... 3

2.3.

S

TAKEHOLDER ISSUES

................................................................................................................................. 3

2.4.

C

ONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUESTS

.......................................................... 7

2.5.

N

EW CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ISSUED AS A RESULT OF THIS AUDIT

............................................................... 7

2.6.

A

UDIT OBSERVATIONS

.................................................................................................................................. 8

3.

AUDIT PROCESS .................................................................................................................................. 9

3.1.

A

UDITORS AND QUALIFICATIONS

:

................................................................................................................. 9

3.2.

A

UDIT SCHEDULE

.......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.

S

AMPLING METHODOLOGY

:

.......................................................................................................................... 9

3.4.

S

TAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS

.................................................................................................. 10

3.5.

C

HANGES TO

C

ERTIFICATION

S

TANDARDS

................................................................................................ 10

APPENDIX I: List of visited sites (confidential) ............................................................................................11

APPENDIX II: List of stakeholders consulted (confidential) .........................................................................12

APPENDIX III: Forest management standard conformance (confidential) ..................................................13

APPENDIX IV: Chain of Custody Conformance (confidential) .....................................................................17

APPENDIX V: FSC Annual Audit Reporting Form: ......................................................................................18

APPENDIX VI: SmartWood Database Update Form ...................................................................................21

Standard Conversions

1 mbf = 5.1 m

3

1 cord = 2.55 m

3

1 gallon (US) = 3.78541 liters

1 inch = 2.54 cm

1 foot = 0.3048 m

1 yard = 0.9144 m

1 mile = 1.60934 km

1 acre = 0.405 hectares

1 pound = 0.4536 kg

1 US ton = 907.185 kg

1 UK ton = 1016.047 kg

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to document annual audit conformance of Paul Smith's College,

hereafter referred to as Forest Management Enterprise (FME). The report presents the findings

of SmartWood auditors who have evaluated company systems and performance against FSC

forest management standards and policies. Section 2 of this report provides the audit

conclusions and any necessary follow-up actions by the company through corrective action

requests.

SmartWood audit reports include information which will become public information. Sections 1-3

will be posted on SmartWood’s website according to FSC requirements. All appendices will

remain confidential.

Dispute resolution: If SmartWood clients encounter organizations or individuals having concerns

or comments about Rainforest Alliance / SmartWood and our services, these parties are strongly

encouraged to contact SmartWood regional or Headquarters offices directly (see contact

information on report cover). Formal complaints or concerns should be sent in writing.

2. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RESULTS

2.1.

Audit conclusion

Based on Company’s conformance with FSC and SmartWood requirements, the audit

team makes the following recommendation:

Certification requirements met, certificate maintenance recommended

Upon acceptance of CAR(s) issued below

Certification requirements not met:

Conformance with Major CAR(s) required

Additional comments

:

Issues identified as

controversial or hard to

evaluate.

2.2.

Changes in the forest management of the FME

None

2.3.

Stakeholder issues

SmartWood was contacted by some stakeholders with concerns regarding the forest

management practices on, primarily, the Currier property of Paul Smith’s College (PSC). The

stakeholders had multiple concerns that were related to the FSC Standard. The issues raised

by the stakeholders were reviewed during the April 2008 field audit and a second field audit in

August 2008.

1. Tax Exempt Status.

Stakeholders indicated that for the Currier property, PSC was claiming

tax exempt status for educational purposes and not paying property taxes but that the students

were not using the property. PSC confirmed that students are currently using the property for

SmartWood Forest Management Annual Audit Report

Page 4 of 21

educational purposes and they intend to continue to do so. Because the Currier property is

approximately one-half hour from campus it is used less than other PSC lands that are

adjacent to the campus. The amount of use varies from time to time with the current activities

on the property and field trip needs of the faculty. Two class trips were planned to the property

in 2008, one to view the marked timber prior to harvest and a second to view harvesting.

However, because the harvesting did not start in time, only the pre-harvest field trip took place

during the spring semester.

2. Gift of Curriers.

The Currier Property was indentured to PSC in 1968 by Alfred M. Currier

and Gertrude B. Currier. Stakeholders expressed concern that the property is not being

managed according to the wishes of the Curriers. The auditor was provided with a copy of the

Indenture and related correspondence. Additionally, the Currier property was visited as part of

the April and August field audits. The only relevant items specifically outlined in the Indenture

are maintenance of the cemetery in which the Curriers are buried and the protection of a white

pine stand. The auditor observed that both of these areas are being protected by PSC. It is the

auditors’ conclusion that all documented wishes of the Curriers are being met.

3. Aggressive Nature of Management.

The 2008 Currier property harvest used whole tree

harvesting and skidding combined with a log slasher, pulp debarker/chipper (―clean chip‖

operation) and grinding of the remaining small limbs and cull material for biomass. One

stakeholder, reportedly speaking for others, felt this was similar to industrial forestry and not

necessary for a college-owned property.

Based on site visits and interviews, the auditors

concluded that the mix of equipment and silviculture was consistent with the potential markets

and products, was appropriate to the needs of the property, and was consistent with some of

the other FSC–certified lands in the region.

In general, there has been some stakeholder concern that financial goals are driving the

management activities on PSC lands. However, PSC is continuing to follow the management

plan, PSC has indicated that they have not increased or modified harvest levels specified in

the plan. A PSC administrator emphasized the College’s continued commitment to being a

model of sustainable forestry practices for students and the public. PSC consulting foresters

indicate that while there are financial targets they have never felt pressure to increase the

harvest level or make PSC more money. With the exception of the timing of skidding of felled

timber (see rutting issue below), the auditors saw nothing during the audit that would indicate

harvesting is being driven by financial concerns.

4. Financial Due Diligence.

Two stakeholders felt that the current harvest at the Currier

property did not make sense financially and that PSC’s forest manager, Northwoods Forest

Consultants (NFC) was not providing PSC with financial due diligence. Specific complaints

included high costs of a new road and stream crossing, chipping of small diameter Select, #1,

and #2 white pine logs, and selling logs at a lower stumpage value than had been offered by a

local sawmill.

Prior to signing the harvesting contract PSC was aware that the cost of the road and stream

crossing would be high relative to the income projections, but stated that they made a decision

to prioritize the long-term access and silviculture revenues over maximizing income. The

decision to build the bridge and access road was made to ensure a permanent access from

Goodspeed Road to the west that was entirely on PSC lands rather than relying on a

contested abandoned county road across lands of others and creating conflicts with

landowners along the abandoned county road.

SmartWood Forest Management Annual Audit Report

Page 5 of 21

The primary objective of the harvest was an improvement cut to remove low grade material

that had been left by the previous forest manager and to provide growing space for better

quality stems. Harvest records to date indicate that a significant majority of the volume

harvested has been low grade material (pulp chips and biomass), which is consistent with the

harvest goals. Post harvest stands observed during the field audit were well stocked with

better quality timber.

The issue of chipping sawlogs was reviewed during the field audit. Without actual evidence of

sawlogs being chipped this allegation would be impossible to prove. Piles at the landing may

contain both trees with sawlogs and pulp trees, which are then sorted prior to chipping. There

is a financial incentive for the logging contractor to sell all sawlogs possible, which minimizes

the chance of quality logs being chipped. A sample of mill scale slips indicated approximately

38% of the 218 sawlogs in the sample were less than 12 inches in diameter, which indicates

that operators are being careful to remove low-volume sawlogs from the piles prior to chipping.

The contractor met with a representative of a local pine sawmill (Ward Lumber), but the mill

only offered to buy the better quality logs that were free of black knots. Because of the high

volume of low grade material, the contractor determined that the greatest revenues would be

derived from selling all logs to a single buyer rather then selling the best logs to one buyer and

then attempting to find a second buyer to buy only the low grade logs.

In sum, the auditors have found that at the Currier property the actions of PSC, the logging

contractor and NFC have been consistent with the FSC Northeast standard regarding financial

viability, long-term investments in the forest, silviculture, timber utilization and diversity of forest

products.

5. Rutting, Residual Stand Damage, and Skid Trail Width

. Stakeholders contacted

SmartWood during July 2008 regarding site and stand damage at the Currier property from

ongoing harvest operations. SmartWood sent a second auditor, Robert Bryan, to review the

ongoing operations on August 13, 2008.

Heavy and frequent rainfall in July and August 2008 resulted in sensitive site conditions. On

July 21

st

several skid trails near the landing on to the east of Goodspeed Road were heavily

rutted after a heavy rain. Because this was the last section of previously-felled timber to be

skidded to the east of the road, the contractor decided to complete the skidding and

processing that day and then smooth out the rutted trails, rather than moving all equipment

and then returning at a later date to complete the operation (OBS 01/08). The auditor observed

two main skid trails and two branching trails with a total estimated combined length of several

hundred feet that had been rutted and restored. Trail widths ranged from 12 to 20 feet. While

the distance between skid trails was generally greater than 60 feet (between-trail distances of

40 to 120 feet were observed) throughout the sale area, the area in trails was greater in the

damage area than on other parts of the property due to a network of intersecting trails.

Skidding and processing were ongoing to the west of the Goodspeed Road at the time of the

August 13

th

site visit. The contractor had shut down the operation on Friday August 8

th

due to

wet soils. Skidding resumed on August 11

th

, with contractor and forester moving some skid

trails to reduce rutting damage. However, due to heavy skidding traffic and continuing damage,

the decision was made to close the operation and not harvest about 40 acres of marked timber

until site conditions improved. While many skid trails were in good condition, several trails

north of the landing had been heavily rutted and then smoothed over.

SmartWood Forest Management Annual Audit Report

Page 6 of 21

In considering the issues related to skidding, the auditor found that the skid trail spacing was

generally very good. However, because the main trails are not flagged in advance but are

determined by the harvester, the density of trails (a combination of trail spacing and/or

intersecting trails) in some locations was greater than desirable and could likely be reduced by

trail layout in advance of operations (OBS 02/08). This in turn could lead to reduced site

damage.

Specific to the rutting, the amount of damage was greater than desirable and was probably

exacerbated by the slim financial margins of the operation due to its focus on low-value wood.

Both the forester and contractor noted the costs of moving all the equipment and returning

later exceeded the value of wood that had been felled but not yet skidded. Although a smaller

non-mechanized operation might not have been subject to such financial constraints and thus

might have been able to shut down sooner, such a non-mechanized operation might not have

been able to turn a profit removing such a high percentage of low-value wood. Rutting was

limited to two locations on the property, and was confined to main skid trails with minimal

damage between trails. Furthermore, the forester, contractor, and PSC were in communication

regarding the issue and in deciding to close the operation to prevent further damage. Rutting

had not been identified as an issue in previous audits and the current amount of rutting thus

appears to be an exception resulting from the very heavy rainfall this summer. Smoothing of

rutted trails is consistent with NY Best Management Practices (p. 35).

Some damage to residual trees was noted, but this was almost exclusively limited to trees

along the skid trail. Where marked trees were located along skid trails ―bumper trees‖ (tall

stumps) were retained, but in other cases some crop trees along the trails were damaged.

There was very little damage to residual crop trees or regeneration between skid trails – less

so than would result from most chainsaw/cable skidder operations.

In total, the level of damage appeared to be within acceptable limits, but some improvement

might be possible if the main skid trail were laid out by the foresters as the trees are being

marked (OBS 02/08). While PSC faculty were involved in review of the management plan and

use operations for field trips, they are not generally involved in ongoing review of operations

and management policies. In light of PSC’s educational mission, further review and

management policy development that considers the tradeoffs of income, stand improvement,

and potential damage from mechanized operations would also be appropriate (OBS 03/08).

6. Beech Management.

There is some stakeholder concern not enough investment is being

made in addressing the beech problem. Regarding the beech problem, PSC is aware of the

issue and trying to address it. They are doing regeneration studies and monitoring at 3-5 year

intervals. They have only isolated beech issues and have been trying to open up stands to

more sun to encourage other species to regenerate. They have found this approach is

working. They considered prescriptive fire but have not implemented it. The auditor believes

these approaches are adequate and did not see a prevalent beech problem on site during the

audit.

6. Stakeholder Input into Management.

Another stakeholder concern is regarding notification

of neighbors and PSC community regarding management activities and input the stakeholders

have in management decisions. Some stakeholders do not feel there is adequate consultation

regarding management activities. PSC indicates they notify NY DEC for the land that is under

easement. Additionally, they notify facility and staff and someone from PSC presents on

management of the PSC forest lands every year in the silviculture class. Finally, PSC indicates

that they informally notify neighbors if there will be management activities close to them. A

SmartWood Forest Management Annual Audit Report

Page 7 of 21

stakeholder did indicate to the auditor that this was done when planning a harvest but the

stakeholder felt PSC was not willing to explain what type of activity was planned. Other

stakeholders felt that PSC was responsive to their comments. For example, a landing was

moved and a goshawk nest was protected based on input from stakeholders. However, some

stakeholders feel they do not have adequate opportunities to discover what management

activities are planned and to provide appropriate feedback. Additionally, PSC does not keep

records of stakeholder input received and their response (CAR 01/08).

7. Contractor Bids and Contractor Size.

Stakeholders expressed frustration that only large

contractors are used on PSC property. There is some confusion regarding how to get on the

bid list and how bids are awarded. PSC has indicated that they are willing to put all qualified

contractors on the bid list. Qualifications include workers compensation, liability insurance,

quality/reputation (will check past jobs), logistics (distance to harvests), and specific provisions

for each job (road building, harvest of low quality wood). PSC should do more to ensure all

qualified contractors are aware of how to get on the bid list and how bid are awarded (OBS

04/08). Additionally, PSC needs to structure some sales opportunities to allow for small

contractors to bid competitively (CAR 02/08).

2.4.

Conformance with applicable corrective action requests

The section below describes the activities of the certificate holder to address each applicable

corrective action issued during previous evaluations. For each CAR a finding is presented along

with a description of its current status using the following categories. Failure to meet CARs will

result in nonconformances being upgraded from minor to major status with conformance required

within 3 months with risk of suspension or termination of the SmartWood certificate if Major CARs

are not met. The following classification is used to indicate the status of the CAR:

CAR Status

Categories

Explanation

Closed

Certified operation has successfully met the

CAR and addressed the underlying

nonconformance.

Open

Certified operation has not met the CAR;

underlying nonconformance is still present.

CAR becomes a Major CAR with a 3 month

deadline for conformance

There were no corrective actions to be evaluated during this audit.

2.5.

New corrective actions issued as a result of this audit

CAR 01/08

Reference to Standard:

4.4.a; 4.4.c

Non-conformance

Some stakeholders feel they do not have adequate opportunities to

discover what management activities are planned and to provide

appropriate feedback. Additionally, PSC does not keep records of

stakeholder input received and their response.

Major

Minor

Corrective Action Request:

PSC shall develop and implement a formal procedure for

apprising neighbors and the PSC community of management activities and offer them a venue

to provide input. PSC shall develop a system to track all comments and their response.

SmartWood Forest Management Annual Audit Report

Page 8 of 21

Timeline for conformance:

By the next annual audit

Evidence to close CAR:

Pending

CAR Status:

OPEN

Follow-up Actions (if app.):

CAR 02/08

Reference to Standard:

5.2.c

Non-conformance

Stakeholders expressed frustration that only large contractors are used

on PSC property.

Major

Minor

Corrective Action Request:

PSC shall develop and implement a system to ensure that some

timber sales are structured to allow for small contractors to bid competitively.

Timeline for conformance:

By the next annual audit

Evidence to close CAR:

Pending

CAR Status:

OPEN

Follow-up Actions (if app.):

2.6.

Audit observations

Observations

are

very minor problems or the early stages of a problem which does not of itself

constitute a non-conformance, but which the auditor considers may lead to a future non-

conformance if not addressed by the client. An observation may be a warning signal on a

particular issue that, if not addressed, could turn into a CAR in the future (or a pre-condition or

condition during a 5 year re-assessment).

OBS 01/08

Reference Standard & Requirement: 6.5.b

Heavy and frequent rainfall in July and August 2008 resulted in sensitive site conditions on the

Currier property. The contractor decided to complete the skidding and processing that day and

then smooth out the rutted trails, rather than moving all equipment and then returning at a later

date to complete the operation

Observation

: PSC should consider developing a clear and documented policy on rutting that

includes a process for when harvests should be shut down and how shut down is

communicated along the chain of command.

OBS 02/08

Reference Standard & Requirement: 6.5.b

Field observations at the Currier property indicated that soil and stand damage might be

reduced if the main skid trails were laid out by the forester or the forester working in

conjunction with the logging contractor.

Observation

: PSC should consider having foresters lay out main skid trails to minimize the

area in trails and limit the potential for soil and stand damage.

OBS 03/08

Reference Standard & Requirement: 5.1.e, 6.5.a, 6.5.b, 6.5.e

Choice of equipment and contractor profit margins may lead to tradeoffs between silvicultural

goals and potential for site damage. While PSC faculty were involved in review of the

management plan and use operations for field trips, they are not generally involved in ongoing

review of operations and management policies.

Observation

: In light of PSC’s educational mission, PSC should consider faculty involvement

SmartWood Forest Management Annual Audit Report

Page 9 of 21

in case study review of the Currier harvest and possible management policy development that

considers the tradeoffs that come with choice of equipment, including, but not limited to,

income, stand improvement, and potential site and stand damage.

OBS 04/08

Reference Standard & Requirement: 4.1.d

There is some confusion regarding how to get on the bid list and how bids are awarded.

Observation

: PSC should do more to ensure all qualified contractors are aware of how to get

on the bid list and how bid are awarded.

3. AUDIT PROCESS

3.1.

Auditors and qualifications:

Kara Wires:

SmartWood USA Forestry Technical Coordinator. Education: M.S. in forestry.

University of Vermont; B.S. Natural Resources, University of Michigan. Experience: Forestry

Technical Coordinator, US Regions (2005- present); 4 years as SmartWood Certification

Services Coordinator; and two years as a consulting forester in New England. Auditor on over

10 forest management audits and assessments. Experience of teaching College forest ecology

workshops, Project manager on over 100 forest management audits and more than 10 forest

management assessments. Completed a SmartWood Forest Management Assessor Training.

Member of the Society of American Foresters and the Forest Guild.

Robert R. Bryan:

M.S. Forestry, University of Vermont (1984); B.S. Botany and Environmental

Studies, University of Vermont (1976). Currently employed as Forest and Wetlands Habitat

Ecologist/Forester, Maine Audubon (1995 - present) and self-employed as Consulting

Forester/Ecologist (2003 - present). Licensed Maine Forester #907. Member SAF and Forest

Guild.

Certification Experience:

Lead auditor (SmartWood), including over 20 FSC Forest

Management certification audits and assessments in the Northeast, Lake States, and

Appalachia (family forests, investment and industrial forests, managed conservation forests,

and public lands). Member of FSC Northeast Standards Committee 1997-2003 and FSC-US

national standards advisory committee (2007-2008), peer review of SFI industrial forest

certification in Northern Maine, member of state-level forest certification policy committees.

3.2.

Audit schedule

Date

Location /Main sites

Principal Activities

4/22/08

Office

Review documentation and changes since last audit

4/22/08

Paul Smith’s College

property

Visit field sites with planned and completed activities

8/13/08

Currier Property

Review ongoing and completed operations with

forester, contractor, and PSC forest manager.

8/13/08

PSC Campus

Discuss Currier harvest and PSC goals with college

administration.

Total number of person days used for the audit: 3.0

= number of auditors participating

2

times total number of days spent for the audit

1.5

3.3.

Sampling methodology:

SmartWood Forest Management Annual Audit Report

Page 10 of 21

The audit focused on continued conformance with the FSC standards. The April audit began

with a meeting to discuss management activities and changes since last audit.

During the

meeting, management activities and changes since last audit were discussed. Appropriate

documentation was reviewed. Properties were selected that could be visited within the

timeframe of the audit. The properties selected to visit were those that had recent management

activities and/or had not been visited by previous auditors. Sites were visited with the goal of

seeing management activities—current and past as well as planned and to review different

types of operations, site level practices and protection of sensitive areas/sites. Documentation

pertaining to these activities was reviewed prior to, and after, the site visits. Additionally, roads,

gates and signage were also inspected.

The August field audit focused issues raised by stakeholders regarding sensitive sites and

stand damage at the Currier property.

3.4.

Stakeholder consultation process

There were some unsolicited stakeholder comments that were evaluated as part of this audit.

PSC and other stakeholders provided the auditor with a list of additional stakeholders to

contact. The auditor attempted to contact as many as possible from the lists.

Stakeholder type

(i.e. NGO, government, local

inhabitant etc.)

Stakeholders notified

(#)

Stakeholders consulted

or

providing input (#)

Neighbor

4

2

Logging Contractor

5

4

Consulting Forester

3

1

Other area residents

2

2

3.5.

Changes to Certification Standards

Forest stewardship

standard used in audit:

Revised Final Forest Stewardship Standard for the Northeast

Region (USA), VERSION V9.0, 2/10/05

Revisions to the standard

since the last audit:

No changes to standard.

Standard was changed

(detail changes below

)

Changes in standard:

Implications for FME:

Not applicable - no new requirements