Docstoc

northeast_forestland

Document Sample
northeast_forestland Powered By Docstoc
					                             Forest Management Public Summary

                                                    for

                  The Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestland

                              Certification Code: SW-FM/COC-1881
                                Date of Certification: May 16, 2006
                                Date of Public Summary: May 2006




                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 Program1
c/o Rainforest Alliance
665 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, New York 10012 USA
TEL: (212) 677-1900 FAX: (212) 677-2187
Email: info@smartwood.org
Website: www.smartwood.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.


SmartWood Program    FM-02                                                                         Page 1 of 23
INTRODUCTION
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 (corrective action requests), 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.


                                    ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

  AAC         Annual Allowable Cut
  BMP         Best Management Practice
  CITES       Convention on Trade in Endangered Species
  CLP         Certified Logging Professional
  FMA         Forest Management Area
  FMO         Forest Management Operation
  FSC         Forest Stewardship Council
  HCVF        High Conservation Value Forest
  IPM         Integrated Pest Management
  LURC        Land Use Regulatory Commission
  MFS         Maine Forest Service
  MHPC        Maine Historic Preservation Commission
  MNAP        Maine Natural Areas Program
  NIPF        Non Industrial Private Forest
  NREC        Natural Resource Education Center
  NTFP        Non-Timber Forest Product
  P&C         Principles and Criteria of the FSC
  RTE         Rare, threatened and endangered
  MLC         Master Logger Certification
  SLIMF       Small and Low Intensity Managed Forest
  TCNF        The Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands



                                          Standard Conversions
                                         1 acre = 0.405 hectares
                                         1 foot = 0.3048 Meters
                                       1 mile = 1.60934 Kilometers

                                              1 mbf = 5.1 m3
                                             1 cord = 2.55 m3
                                      1 Gallon (US) = 3.78541 Liters




SmartWood Program    FM-02                                                                        Page 2 of 23
1. SCOPE OF THE CERTIFICATE
 1.1.    Scope of the certificate
 The Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands (TCNF) is a 501(c) 3 non-profit organization based in Fort Kent,
 Maine (USA). TCNF was formed initially to administer the Maine Master Logger Certification (MLC) Program,
 and currently holds FSC Chain of Custody certification for MLC logging operations. TCNF has been established
 with the broader goal of “Enhancing the Health of Maine’s Working Forests”, with a working model of deliberate
 and structured collaboration among landowners, loggers and resource management professionals.

 TCNF will hold the FSC forest management certificate and will have overall responsibility for ensuring
 conformance with the FSC and SmartWood certification requirements. There are currently three individual
 properties (three landowners) totaling 287 hectares (709 acres) included in TCNF’s proposed FSC group
 certification. Two of the three properties are owned by non-industrial private forestland (NIPF) owners. The
 remaining property is a non-profit institutional ownership owned by a regional natural resource educational
 organization.

 The TCNF group member properties are located in three counties in central and south-central Maine, USA. This
 central region of Maine is characterized by a landscape dominated by a matrix of forest and agricultural land use.
 Dispersed outdoor recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and canoeing are common
 pursuits in the region. Tourism has a significant economic and social influence in Maine, with increasing
 importance in the southern and coastal regions. Development pressures associated with residential and associated
 commercial real estate markets are a significant threat to Maine’s rural culture and open spaces, including forest
 ecosystems.

 See more detailed information about the FMO and areas covered by the certificate in Appendix II and III.

 1.2.    Exclusion of areas from the scope of certificate
 TCNF is a recently formed (initiated in 2003) organization and is still very much in the building phase in terms of
 participation and membership. TCNF is concurrently building two distinct, but related aspects of their
 organization: a forest management program, and a Master Logger Program. TCNF is exercising considerable
 caution in enrollment of members with the principle maintaining high degree of integrity in their programs and
 related activities. As such, TCNF has elected to initialize their proposed group certification with only three
 landowner members. In total, TCNF has engaged nine landowners as potential group members, with six
 landowners in the process of working toward group membership. Participants in the TCNF MLC Program are not
 required to become members of the proposed FSC group certification, however the option is available, and TCNF
 does anticipate “cross fertilization” between the two programs. Currently, all landowners engaged in the forest
 TCNF management program are either members or pending members of the proposed group certification. TCNF
 does not currently anticipate providing forest management services to landowners that are not existing or potential
 members of their proposed FSC group certification.




SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                               Page 3 of 23
2. ASSESSMENT PROCESS
2.1. Certification Standard Used
The official standard used for the certification assessment is the Forest Stewardship Standard for the Northeast
Region (USA) Version V8.1 12/02/04 (including the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont). This standard was approved by the FSC-US Board June 6, 2002;
accredited by FSC International November 29, 2002; revised to V8.0 on 11/4/03 to meet condition requirements
posed in FSC-IC Condition Report ABU-REP-34-2003-10-10-US-NE issued 10/10/03, and modified to V8.1 on
12/2/04 to meet Condition Report ABU-REP-34-2004-11-17-USA-NE.pdf issued on 9/16/04. . These Standards
may be accessed at: www.fscus.org.

Additionally, the certification assessment process for TCNF has been conducted in accordance with the FSC SLIMF
Streamlined Certification Procedures.

2.2. Assessment team and qualifications
David Bubser, Forester. B.S. Forest Resource Management, University of Idaho, 1983; SmartWood US Region
Manager (current); five years as SmartWood Regional Manager in various US locations; seventeen years of forest
management experience, primarily with mid-sized tribal ownerships. Professional forestry experience primarily in
silviculture, forest management and planning and harvest administration in the Lake States and Inland Northwest
regions of the US. Auditor or project manager on over 120 FSC forest certification assessments and audits.

2.3. Report peer reviewers
In keeping with FSC SLIMF Streamlined Certification Procedures no peer review is associated with this
assessment.

2.4. Assessment schedule

          Date                          General Location*                           Main activities
 August 18, 2005              Brunswick, ME                          Introductory Meeting
 August 18, 2005              Two non-industrial private forestlands Timber harvesting, skidding & decking, road
                              in Sagadahoc and Lincoln Counties,     maintenance.
                              ME.
 August 18, 2005              Two non-profit educational forestlands Timber harvesting, trails, various
                              in Piscataquis County                  educational initiatives
 Total number of person-days used for the assessment: One (1 assessor, 1 day)
 * Detail on sites visited provided in Appendix VI.

2.5. Evaluation strategy
This evaluation follows the FSC streamlined evaluation procedures documented in the following FSC document:
         FSC-POL-20-101 SLIMF Streamlined Certification Procedures: summary
         FSC-POL-20-100 SLIMF Eligibility Criteria.

Application of the FSC SLIMF sampling guidelines for TCNF would allow for a minimum sample size of two
properties (Sample size = 0.6 √y, where y is the number of properties in the group). However, given the small
number of properties in the group, and that TCNF has little forest management history, all three properties proposed
for the FSC group were visited. These properties represent 100% of the 709 acres currently enrolled in the




SmartWood Program      FM-02                                                                               Page 4 of 23
proposed group, and 40% of the total 1,778 acres currently enrolled (3 properties, 709 acres) or pending for
enrollment (7 properties, 1069 acres).

Each field visit was conducted in the company of John Gunn, TCNF Director of Forest Certification and Research
and the managing forester. Landowners were present for two of the three ownerships. Field visits included
inspections of recent, ongoing and planned management activities on each property including timber marking,
timber harvesting, road rehabilitation, culvert installation, trail maintenance, signage (educational).

List of management aspects reviewed by assessment team:

                                              Sites                                                   Sites
               Type of site                                           Type of site
                                             visited                                                 visited
   Road reconstruction                          2         Bridges/stream crossing                       3
   Road maintenance                             2         Chemical storage                              0
   Tree nursery                                 1         Wetland                                       3
   Planned Harvest site                         1         Steep slope/erosion                           0
   Ongoing Harvest site                         0         Riparian zone                                 4
   Completed logging                            2         Tree nursery (educational)                    1
   Soil scarification                           0         Weed control                                  0
   Felling by harvester                         1         Natural regeneration                          1
   Felling by forest worker                     1         Endangered species                            0
   Skidding/Forwarding                          2         Wildlife management                           1
   Clearcutting                                 1         Nature Reserve                                1
   Shelterwood management                       0         Special management area                       2
   Selective harvesting                         1         Historical site                               0
   Sanitary cutting                             0         Educational site                              2
   Pre-commercial thinning                      0         Buffer zone                                   1
   Commercial thinning                          1         Local community                               0

2.6. Stakeholder consultation process

  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 assessor in identifying potential issues; and,
      3. To provide diverse opportunities for the public to discuss and act upon the findings of the assessment.

  The stakeholder consultation process includes an initial stakeholder notification, as well as detailed and
  meaningful stakeholder interaction. The process of stakeholder interaction begins prior to the field visits, occurs
  throughout the field evaluations including post assessment interviews, and can continue after a certification
  decision is made. SmartWood welcomes comments on certified operations at any time, and such comments often
  provide a basis for field auditing.

  In the case of TCNF, prior to the actual assessment process, a public stakeholder notice was developed and posted
  on the SmartWood website. TCNF was also encouraged to distribute the public notice to interested parties. The
  public stakeholder notice was also distributed via email to a list of over 80 stakeholder maintained by
  SmartWood. Through input from TCNF and information gathered by the assessor, a list of stakeholders was
  developed to provide a basis for the assessor to select people for interviews (by telephone) to gather additional
  stakeholder input.

                 Stakeholder Type                      Stakeholders informed      Stakeholders consulted or
                                                                (#)                  providing input (#)
    Government                                                  16                           2
    Environmental NGO                                           22                           1



SmartWood Program      FM-02                                                                                   Page 5 of 23
              Stakeholder Type   Stakeholders informed   Stakeholders consulted or
                                          (#)               providing input (#)
   Forest Products NGO                    11                        1
   Forest industry companies              38                        1
   Resource Managers                       0                        2
   FMO Employees                           0                        1
   Landowners and Managers                 1                        2




SmartWood Program   FM-02                                                       Page 6 of 23
3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
 3.1.      Stakeholder comments received
 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.


        FSC Principle                Stakeholder comment                            SmartWood response
                            1. TCNF Staff and collaborating               1. SmartWood concurs. TCNF is clearly
                               foresters are highly regarded for their       taking a very deliberate approach to
  P1: FSC                      integrity.                                    meeting FSC standards.
  Commitment and            2. TCNF staff and collaborating foresters     2. TCNF has demonstrated propensity for
  Legal Compliance             are all very capable and among the top        engaging landowners with a strong
                               tier of resource mangers in Maine.            forest stewardship ethic and foresters
                                                                             with significant experience and skill.
  P2: Tenure & Use          None.                                         No response necessary.
  Rights &
  Responsibilities
  P3 – Indigenous           None.                                         No response necessary.
  Peoples’ Rights
                            1. The TCNF concept of engaging               1. SmartWood observations made during
                               landowners, loggers and foresters on a        the assessment process and in
  P4: Community                mutually beneficial platform is a very        consultation with stakeholders support
  Relations &                  positive development and a good               both stakeholder comments relative to
  Workers’ Rights              model.                                        Principle 4.
                            2. TCNF works well with other                 2. See above.
                               organizations.
                            1. In order for TCNF to be successful in      1. Healthy markets for FSC certified
                               recruiting members to participate in          products are evolving, and can create
  P5: Benefits from
                               FSC certification, their business plan        meaningful economic incentives for
  the Forest
                               should include building an economy            landowners to participate in FSC
                               around markets for certified products.        certification.
                            1. TCNF is promoting and practicing           1. All field sited visited during the
  P6: Environmental
                               good forestry.                                assessment were examples of balanced,
  Impact
                                                                             responsible forest management.
  P7: Management            None.                                         No response necessary.
  Plan
                            1. TCNF will have challenges as they          1. TCNF has developed a monitoring
                               grow, particularly with respect to their      system for both the forest management
                               involvement with the Master Logger            group and the MLC program.
  P8: Monitoring &             Program, in maintaining the integrity         SmartWood concurs that maintaining an
  Assessment                   and reputation of their organization.         effective monitoring program will
                                                                             become increasingly challenging, and
                                                                             important, as participation in TCNF
                                                                             programs increases.,
  P9: Maintenance of        None.                                         No response necessary.
  High Conservation
  Value Forest
  P10 - Plantations         None.                                         No response necessary.




SmartWood Program       FM-02                                                                               Page 7 of 23
 3.2.    Main strengths and weaknesses

        Principle                          Strengths                                Weaknesses
  P1: FSC                     TCNF organizational documents             No significant weaknesses noted.
  Commitment and              include written commitment to
  Legal Compliance            managing in accordance with FSC
                              Principles and Criteria.
  P2: Tenure & Use            Foresters conduct thorough interviews     No significant weaknesses noted.
  Rights &                    with all candidate members to identify
  Responsibilities            any land use or tenure issues.
                              Foresters check tax maps and deeds to
                              confirm ownership and identify
                              property lines.
  P3 – Indigenous             TCNF foresters submit inquiries to        TCNF does not consult with any of the
  Peoples’ Rights             Maine Historic Preservation               four federally recognized tribes in
                              Commission prior to harvesting.           Maine. See CAR 1-05.
  P4: Community               TCNF has a documented dispute             TCNF has not developed a safety
  Relations &                 resolution policy and procedure.          program for employees and contractors.
  Workers’ Rights             TCNF employees, group members and         See CAR 2/06.
                              collaborating resource managers are
                              exceptionally engaged in community,
                              civic, professional and educational
                              organizations and activities.
  P5: Benefits from           TCNF group members sell timber            TCNF has not formally developed or
  the Forest                  products into diverse markets,            adopted defined standards for acceptable
                              capturing value for many low grade        levels of damage. See CAR 3/06.
                              products.
                              TCNF members merchandize wood to
                              optimize net value of products
                              harvested and sold.
                              Harvest levels are determined by
                              management objectives.
  P6: Environmental           TCNF, group members and                   TCNF does not have a consistent,
  Impact                      collaborating resource managers all       formalized process for assessing current
                              share a strong interest in protecting     conditions, potential short term
                              biodiversity and environmental values.    environmental impacts and cumulative
                              TCNF collaborating resource               effects prior to implementing
                              managers exercise care in                 management activities. See CAR 4/06.
                              implementation of site disturbing         TCNF has not yet gone through a formal
                              activities.                               assessment process to identify and retain
                              TCNF members do not use pesticides.       representative samples of existing
                                                                        ecosystems. See CAR 5/06.
                                                                        TCNF has not taken specific measures to
                                                                        control invasive species identified on
                                                                        member properties. See CAR 6/06.
  P7: Management              The Land Health Account format for        TCNF does not use a consistent format
  Plan                        management plans provides robust          for management plans. See CAR 7/06.
                              descriptions of ecological factors,       Management plans do not consistently
                              socio-economic conditions and             address all ecological elements required
                              landscape level considerations.           by FSC. See CAR 7/06.
                              Stand level silvicultural prescriptions   Monitoring is not addressed in TCNF
                              are included in all management plans.     group member management plans. See
                              TCNF encourages the use of Master         CAR 7/06.



SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                             Page 8 of 23
                              Loggers in timber harvests.
                              CNF collaborates with experienced
                              and skilled resource managers.
  P8: Monitoring &            TCNF has developed a concise yet           TCNF has not developed monitoring
  Assessment                  comprehensive guidance document for        plans for group member properties. See
                              development of monitoring plans.           CAR 8/06.
  P9: Maintenance of          In the development of the MLC              HCVFs are not consistently addressed in
  High Conservation           Program COC certification, TCNF            management plans. See CAR 7/06.
  Value Forest                developed a risk assessment for the        HCVFs are not addressed in the TCNF
                              five FSC Controlled Wood excluded          Forest Monitoring Plan Checklist. See
                              categories, including HCVF areas.          CAR 8/06.
                              TCNF Group Manager is an                   TCNF has not defined high conservation
                              experienced ecologist and is well          values for the regions in which they
                              informed on the FSC requirements for       operate and does not have a consistent,
                              identification and maintenance of          formal process for identifying HCVF on
                              HCVFs.                                     group member properties. See CAR
                                                                         9/06.
  P10 - Plantations           No significant strengths noted.            No significant weaknesses noted.

  Chain of custody            The MLC Program associated with            Upon achieving FSC certification,
                              TCNF has received FSC Chain of             TCNF’s FSC certificate code and
                              Custody certification. TCNF                certified description of products must be
                              encourages use of Master Loggers for       included on sales and shipping
                              harvesting on group member                 documentation. See CAR 10/06.
                              properties.

  Group                       TCNF allows for flexibility in             TCNF has not developed a monitoring
  Certification               management style among                     program for ensuring consistent
  Requirements                collaborating resource managers and        conformance with FSC principles and
                              their group member clients.                TCNF systems. See CAR 11/06.
                                                                         TCNF does not maintain adequate files
                                                                         for each group member. See CAR 12

 3.3.    Identified non-conformances and corrective actions

 A non-conformance is a discrepancy or gap identified during the assessment between some aspect of the FMO’s
 management system and one or more of the requirements of the forest stewardship standard. Depending on the
 severity of the non-compliance the assessment team differentiates between major and minor non-conformances.

         •    Major non-conformance results where there is a fundamental failure to achieve the objective of the
              relevant FSC criterion. A number of minor non-compliances against one requirement may be considered
              to have a cumulative effect, and therefore be considered a major non-conformance.
         •    Minor non-conformance is a temporary, unusual or non-systematic non-conformance, for which the
              effects are limited.

 Major non-conformances must be corrected before the certificate can be issued. While minor non-conformances do
 not prohibit issuing the certificate, they must be addressed within the given timeframe to maintain the certificate.

 Each non-conformance is addressed by the audit team by issuing a corrective action request (CAR) CARs are
 requirements that candidate operations must agree to, and which must be addressed, within the given timeframe of a
 maximum of one year period.


  CAR 1/06        Reference to standard: 3.3.a                                          Major:        Minor:



SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                              Page 9 of 23
  Non Conformance: Currently, TCNF collaborating foresters submit inquiries to the MHPC for identification of
  known historic or cultural sites, but do not consult with any of the four tribes.
  Corrective Action: TCNF shall develop and implement a protocol for formal consultation with the Maine tribes
  for identification and protection of cultural sites and resources. As a standard procedure in the management
  planning for property, TCNF shall minimally contact the Maine Historic Preservation Commission and
  appropriate the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer to query existing databases for recorded sites, and shall
  develop protection measures in consultation with these entities as appropriate. Previously unrecorded sites
  discovered by TCNF shall be promptly reported to the appropriate authorities.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

  CAR 2/06         Reference to standard: 4.2.a                                           Major:        Minor:
  Non Conformance: TCNF has not developed a safety program for the proposed forest management group to
  address employees, collaborating professionals or contractors. The TCNF “Vision Statement, Purpose and
  Principles” document states that TCNF will follow all laws related to employment and safety, however there are
  no programs in place to implement this goal.
  Corrective Action: TCNF shall develop and implement a safety program to include specific safety standards for
  each classification of worker in its employ or under contract. At a minimum, safety standards shall address
  adherence to relevant laws and regulations, safety training, health & safety protocols, contractual requirements
  and use of safety equipment. The safety policy shall be distributed to all new and existing employees,
  collaborating resource managers and contractors. Relevant laws and regulations should be specifically
  referenced.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

  CAR 3/06          Reference to standard: 5.3.b, 6.5.c, 6.5.d, 6.5.e                         Major:       Minor:
  Non Conformance: TCNF has not formally developed or adopted defined consistent standards for acceptable
  levels of damage on all harvest operations. TCNF uses established MLC guidelines for harvests conducted by
  Master Loggers, but has not established a consistent standard for all operations, including harvests that are not
  conducted by Master Loggers.
   Corrective Action:, TCNF shall develop or otherwise formally adopt written guidelines as minimum standards
   for forest operations to protect water and hydrologically sensitive areas, soils, trees, regeneration and other
   residual stand attributes. As a supplement to these guidelines, TCNF must develop measurable performance
   standards for all site disturbing activities (e.g. site preparation, road construction and maintenance, harvesting) to
   include maximum allowable thresholds for residual stand damage to both trees and soils. These standards shall
   be included or referenced in all harvest contracts and clearly communicated to group members, collaborating
   resource managers and loggers.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

  CAR 4/06            Reference to standard: 6.1.a, 6.1.d, 7.1.i.                            Major:        Minor:
  Non Conformance: TCNF does not have a tool or standard protocol for ensuring that an assessment of current
  conditions (e.g. pre-harvest evaluation) is consistently conducted prior to initiating site disturbing activities in a
  manner consistent with FSC standards. Particularly given the structure of their group, with timber harvests
  designed and administered by independent foresters, TCNF will need additional assurances that potential short-
  term environmental impacts and their cumulative effects are consistently evaluated.
   Corrective Action: TCNF shall develop and implement a formal protocol for conducting an evaluation prior to
   initiation of all significant management activities (e.g. road construction, chemical application, timber harvest) to
   ensure that the activity is consistent with the management plan and FSC standards. This evaluation must include,
   at a minimum, an assessment of all elements listed in Indicator 6.1.a; a review of anticipated short term and
   cumulative environmental impacts and methods of mitigating these impacts; silvicultural prescriptions, and
   operational considerations or limitations. The results of this assessment shall be documented and clearly
   communicated to all relevant parties.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

  CAR 5/06         Reference to standard: 6.4.a, 6.4.e                                      Major:         Minor:



SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                                  Page 10 of 23
  Non Conformance: TCNF has not yet gone through a formal assessment process to identify and retain
  representative samples of existing ecosystems. As TCNF group members are currently all NIPF owners, it is
  recognized that property size may hinder the feasibility of maintaining ecologically viable representative samples
  of some ecosystems.
   Corrective Action: TCNF shall develop and implement procedures to identify and protect representative sample
   areas in accordance with Criterion 6.4, including representation of under-represented or at-risk ecological
   conditions, and other areas described in the Applicability Note to Criterion 6.4. The process and rationale used to
   determine the size and extent of representative samples shall be described in a publicly available document.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

  CAR 6/06         Reference to standard: 6.9.b                                           Major:         Minor:
  Non Conformance: Several invasive exotic species are present on TCNF group member properties. To date, no
  specific action has been taken to control these species, and invasive species are not consistently addressed in
  management plans.
  Corrective Action: TCNF shall develop and implement a policy to identify and control aggressive, invasive
  species to the extent feasible. This policy shall include protocols for the development of property specific action
  plans, and shall be distributed to all group members and collaborating resource managers.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

  CAR 7/06         Reference to standard: 7.1.e.1, 7.1.f.1, 7.2.a                        Major:         Minor:
  Non Conformance: Ecological processes and disturbance regimes are not consistently assessed in plans, nor are
  HCVFs or designation of representative samples of existing ecosystems. Monitoring is not addressed in TCNF
  group member management plans.
  Corrective Action: TCNF shall develop and implement a protocol to ensure that all management plans include
  all elements described in Criterion 7.1, to include a mechanism to verify that recommended changes are made in
  a reasonable period of time. Specifically, the following elements were found to be lacking or inconsistently
  addressed in management plans: description of a monitoring plan; defined planning period and policy for plan
  revision; identification and protection of HCVF; identification and protection of cultural and historical sites;
  identification and designation of representative samples of existing ecosystems.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

  CAR 8/06         Reference to standard: 8.1.b.                                           Major:       Minor:
  Non Conformance: TCNF has not developed monitoring plans for group member properties.
  Corrective Action: TCNF shall develop monitoring plans for each property that include the rationale for and
  intensity of monitoring at both the activity level and the property level. As an alternative, TCNF could produce
  one comprehensive monitoring plan to include all group member properties. In either case, monitoring plans
  shall specifically identify variables to be monitored, frequency of monitoring, responsible parties and protocols
  for record keeping. At a minimum, monitoring must address all indicators listed in Criterion 8.2 as well as the
  condition of HCVFs. Monitoring plans must describe procedures for incorporating the results of monitoring into
  management plans, and for making results available to the public.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

  CAR 9/06        Reference to standard: 9.1.a.                                          Major:        Minor:
  Non Compliance: TCNF has not defined high conservation values for the regions in which they operate in
  accordance with FSC Principle 9 and does not have a consistent, formal process for identifying HCVF on group
  member properties.
  Corrective Action:, In collaboration with group members, collaborating resource managers and regional
  experts, TCNF must first define the high conservation attributes for their operating region, and then develop a
  protocol to determine if any HCVF’s are present on member properties as they are enrolled in the group. Any
  HCVF’s identified must be managed to maintain or enhance the attributes that define the HCVF, and monitored
  annually to evaluate the effectiveness of these management strategies in maintaining the HCVF.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.




SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                               Page 11 of 23
  CAR 10/06      Reference to standard: COC 5                                          Major:         Minor:
  Non Conformance: FSC certificate code and certified description of products must be included on sales and
  shipping documentation
  Corrective Action: TCNF shall ensure that all timber sale prospectus’, contracts and other sales or shipping
  documents for group member properties include a description of the timber or logs as FSC certified and shall also
  include TCNF’s FSC registration number.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: Prior to the next timber harvest

  CAR 11/06        Reference to standard: GC 8                                        Major:        Minor:
  Non Conformance: TCNF has not developed a monitoring program for ensuring consistent application of TCNF
  systems and protocols, and ultimately for consistent conformance with FSC principles.
  Corrective Action: TCNF shall modify their group monitoring program to ensure consistent application of all
  elements of TCNF group member requirements, and consistent conformance with FSC principles. This
  programmatic monitoring program shall include annual conformance reviews, including a site visit, on a
  representative sampling of the group member properties. As part of this monitoring program, TCNF shall
  complete the development of their group member annual reporting form and distribute the form, with
  instructions, to all members.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

  CAR 12/06       Reference to standard: GC 9                                            Major:         Minor:
  Non Compliance: TCNF does not maintain complete files of pertinent documents and records for each group
  member.
  Corrective Action: TCNF shall develop and implement a policy and attendant protocols for establishment and
  maintenance of files and records for each group member. This policy must describe standards for both paper and
  electronic documents and records to be maintained, the location for storage of files and records, length of
  retention and all other aspects listed in Criterion GC 9.
  Deadline for completion of corrective action: By the first annual audit.

 3.4.    Follow-up actions by client to meet certification

         None.

 3.5.    Observations

         Observations are voluntary actions suggested by the assessment team, but are not mandated or required.

                                          Observation                                         Standard Reference
  OBS 1/06: TCNF could help landowners reduce the risk of trespass on their lands by                 1.5.a
  establishing and implementing a schedule for each landowner to mark and maintain
  all property boundaries
  OBS 2/06: TCNF could enhance documentation of land tenure by modifying the                        2.1.a
  letter of agreement signed by each group member to specifically state that the
  landowner holds full legal title to the property, followed by a full legal description of
  the property.
  OBS 3/06: TCNF could better ensure that management actions do not adversely                       3.2.a
  affect tribal resources, either directly or indirectly, by meeting with resource
  management staff (e.g. forestry, wildlife, cultural resources, land department) of
  Maine tribes to review issues of concern and to incorporate considerations for such
  issues in strategic and tactical level planning (e.g. management plans, activity level
  prescriptions).
  OBS 4/06. TCNF could enhance efforts to identify and protect cultural resource by                 3.3.a
  providing related formal paraprofessional training to all field staff. Such training



SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                             Page 12 of 23
   may be available through the USDA Forest Service or one of the Maine tribes.
   OBS 5/06: TCNF could enhance the effectiveness of their training investment by                 4.1.j
   establishing a formal training plan for each employee with specific goals directed at
   both individual and departmental needs, to include annual progress reviews.
   OBS 6/06: TCNF could improve the consistency of consultations with neighboring                 4.4.c
   landowners and other people or groups potentially affected by management
   operations by developing a formalized protocol to be used by all group members and
   collaborating resource managers prior to initiating any site disturbing activities.
   OBS 7/06: TCNF could facilitate useful monitoring and a consistent approach to                 4.4.c
   responses by establishing and maintaining a central filing system for stakeholder
   comments and concerns.
   OBS 8/06: TCNF could expand protective measures for accidents by establishing a                4.5.b
   policy, to be implemented by group members, that outlines requirements for liability
   coverage or otherwise demonstrate that loggers and contractors are covered under
   suitable liability policies such that workers or other parties potentially affected by
   logging operations are protected from loss.
   OBS 9/06: TCNF could strengthen management of snags, CWD and other                            6.3.c.1
   biodiversity attributes by developing or formally adopting guidelines with specific
   target recommendations, and by distributing these guidelines to landowner members,
   collaborating resource managers and loggers
   OBS 10/06: TCNF could strengthen their protection of soil productivity on member              6.3.c.4
   properties by developing and distributing a policy on the use of whole tree
   harvesting, including guidelines for retention, site conditions (e.g. productivity) and
   frequency of such harvests.
   OBS 11/06: TCNF could assist group members in their understanding of BMPs by                  6.3.c.5
   hosting or otherwise facilitating attendance at an annual BMP workshop.
   OBS 12/06: TCNF could strengthen their Pesticide Use Policy by specifically                 6.6.a, 6.6.g
   requiring that anyone applying or supervising chemical applications is licensed by
   the Maine Board of Pesticide Control, and by including protocols for monitoring the
   effects of chemical applications and for maintaining thorough records of chemicals
   used.
   OBS 13/06: TCNF could improve group member preparedness for potential large                    6.6.c
   outbreaks of pests (e.g. spruce budworm) by developing written control strategies for
   pests likely to occur in the future on or near member properties.
   OBS 14/06: TCNF could enhance the protection of riparian zones and other                       6.7.c
   hydrological features by specifically prohibiting parking and fueling of equipment in
   riparian zones in contracts and performance standards.
   OBS 15/06: TCNF could strengthen their record keeping for harvested timber                    8.2.a.1
   volumes by maintaining individual and cumulative records of harvest volumes for
   each timber harvest, each property and each year.
   OBS 16/06: TCNF could improve the consistency and effectiveness of activity level             8.2.d.1
   monitoring by modifying the site visit monitoring form to include a detailed checklist
   of variable to include all attributes addressed in Criterion 6.5 as well as effectiveness
   in meeting project objectives. This form could also be designed to be used for a
   variety of activities including but not limited to timber harvesting.
   OBS 17/06: TCNF could increase understanding and facilitate consistent adherence               GC 4
   to both group member requirements and FSC standards by entering into formal or
   informal written agreements with collaborating resource managers, outlining policies,
   procedures and establishing mutual expectations for the role of these managers.

 3.6.     Certification Recommendation

Based on a thorough field review, analysis and compilation of findings by this SmartWood assessment team the
FMO has demonstrated that their described system of management is being implemented consistently over the


SmartWood Program      FM-02                                                                          Page 13 of 23
whole forest areas covered by the scope of the evaluation. SmartWood concludes that TCNF’s management
system, if implemented as described, is capable of ensuring that all the requirements of the certification standards
are met across the scope of the certificate. Relative weaknesses were found in TCNF’s communication with tribes;
lack of a safety program; lack of formalized performance standards for all timber harvests (e.g. those not performed
by Master Loggers), pre-harvest assessments and identification of representative ecosystems. TCNF has also not
formally identified HCV attributes and have not implemented an action plan for invasive species identified on
member properties. TCNF has not yet developed a site level monitoring program. Though TCNF has developed
the framework for their programmatic monitoring, modifications are necessary to meet group certification standards,
including retention of records for all members. Also, while management plans are generally quite strong, a few
modifications are needed to address elements required by FSC standards. A FSC/SmartWood Forest Management
and Chain of Custody (FM/COC) Certification will be issued based upon agreement to the stipulated corrective
action requests.

In order to maintain certification, the FMO 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.
The FMO will also be required to fulfill the corrective actions as described below. Experts from SmartWood will
review continued forest management performance and compliance with the corrective action requests described in
this report, annually during scheduled and random audits.




SmartWood Program      FM-02                                                                             Page 14 of 23
4.     CLIENT SPECIFIC BACKGROUND INFORMATION

 4.1.        Ownership and land tenure description

     The Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands (TCNF) is registered in the State of Maine as a 501(c) 3 non-profit
     organization. TCNF was initially formed to administer the Maine Master Logger Certification Program in
     keeping with TCNF’s Vision of “Enhancing the working forest ecosystem through exceptional accountability”.
     TCNF has expanded their mission to include a forest management group formed to provide low-cost access to
     FSC certification for landowners, resource managers and certified Master Loggers throughout the State of Maine.

     To date, the TCNF group includes three privately owned properties representing a total of 287 hectares (709
     acres). These properties range from 23 acres to 619 acres in size. All of the TCNF group members are non-
     industrial private forestland (NIPF) owners. TCNF group member properties are located in Sagadahoc, Lincoln
     and Piscataquis counties in south-central Maine. In addition to the three properties currently included in the
     TCNF group, there are currently 7 properties representing 1,069 acres identified as candidate members for the
     TCNF group pending satisfaction of certain group membership requirements.

 4.2.        Legislative and government regulatory context

     TCNF group members are all NIPF owners. Forest management operations on private property in the State of
     Maine are governed primarily by the Maine Forest Practices Act (FPA). The Maine FPA is administered by the
     Maine Department of Conservation (DOC). A recent modification of the FPA in response to statewide concern
     about loss of forest cover has made liquidation harvesting illegal. Forest harvest regulations set standards for
     regeneration, clearcuts and separation zones between clearcuts. Best management practices are voluntary in
     Maine. Municipal regulations and ordinances for enforcing local zoning and other restrictions are common in
     Maine, particularly in the southern towns. With the exception of very small harvests, landowners are required to
     notify the Maine DOC in advance of the harvest; notification results in the issuance of a unique harvest
     notification number, which is posted at the harvest site.

     Foresters are licensed in Maine as Licensed Professional Foresters. Licensing is administered by the Maine Board
     of Licensure of Foresters.

     Many landowners elect to enroll their forested properties in the Maine Tree Growth Tax Law program, which
     provides reduced land valuation in exchange for the development of a forest management plan . Several TCNF
     group members participate in the Tree Growth Program.

     Federal laws also apply to NIPF landowners throughout the United States. Federal agencies with some degree of
     regulatory oversight relevant to privately owned forest lands include the Occupational Safety and Health
     Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

     For water quality and wetland protection in Maine, statutes and regulations exist at the federal (e.g., Federal Clean
     Water Act), state (e.g., regulations and zoning protecting shore lands), and local (e.g., local shoreland zoning
     ordinances) level that enable agencies to control water pollution and protect wetlands on public and private forest
     lands. In addition, state and federal laws pertaining to safety, labor and hiring practices, and protection of RT&E
     species must to be adhered to by private landowners and managers.

     In the area of cultural resource management there are voluntary guidelines, but there are also regulatory statutes
     as well. For example, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is an important component of historical
     resource management programs in Maine.

 4.3.        Environmental Context




SmartWood Program         FM-02                                                                                Page 15 of 23
 Forests have always been the most dominant feature on the landscape in Maine and the New England states.
 According to a recent USDA Forest Service forest inventory analysis (FIA) of Maine’s forest resources, 90
 percent of the state - 17.7 million acres – is forested. 96 percent of the forested land - approximately 86% of
 Maine - is covered by timberland. 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 1995.

 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.

 European settlement in the northeastern states triggered a pattern of conversion from forest to agricultural land
 uses which peaked in the middle part of the 19th century. Since then, mostly as a result of agricultural
 abandonment, forest land has continuously increased as a proportion of the landscape until about 1950. The total
 area in timberland has remained relatively stable over the past 50 years in northern New England at about 82% of
 the total land base.

 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. Ownership patterns have shifted significantly over the past five years in northern Maine, with
 large industrial ownerships sold to timber investment management organizations (TIMOs), and occasionally,
 conservation interests. In the 1990’s, nearly 1/3 of the timberland in the North Woods has been sold to new
 owners. This widespread pattern of divestiture by industrial forest products corporations has created increasing
 uneasiness about the future of the northern forest in particular within the forest dependent communities, and state
 and local governments. Conservation easements have played an increasingly important role in protection of
 environmentally and socially important areas.

 TCNF group member properties are located primarily in mid-coast and central Maine. These regions are
 generally characterized by privately owned NIPF properties. The coastal region of Maine has the greatest
 concentration of small forest ownerships. Recent studies show that while the total area in NIPF ownership has
 remained fairly constant, the number of owners has increased consistently, resulting in increased parcelization and
 smaller ownerships. The majority of NIPF 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. Approximately 25% of the NIPF ownerships in the Northeastern US are in properties of 50 acres or less.
 According to surveys, NIPF landowners increasingly hold forestland primarily for reasons other than timber
 production. Although these landowners are not generally opposed to harvesting timber, the increase in local
 ordinances and statewide referendums on clearcutting and liquidation harvests suggest that these owners are more
 likely to be in favor of restrictions on forest practices.

 With approximately 3,500 miles of coastline, the Atlantic Ocean is also a dominant influence on Maine’s
 environment in terms of geography, weather and disturbance patterns. Historically, windstorms have been the
 primary natural disturbance regime in Maine, particularly in coastal regions with powerful storms coming off the
 ocean. Fire, influences of Native Americans and to a lesser extent beavers are other natural disturbance factors
 shaping Maine’s forests. The prevailing thought is that stand replacing events were relatively rare in most of New
 England, particularly inland. Consequently, the prevailing forested landscape was dominated by climax, all aged
 forests regenerated in gaps of varying sizes. Early successional forests are thought to have occupied less than 3%
 of the interior forests, and possibly up to 15% of coastal forests. Following a period of increase in area, early
 succession forests have generally declined in most of New England, with Maine the single exception with an
 increase of over 100% in the latter 25 years of the 20th century. Overall, while still above pre-European levels,
 young forests are approaching more natural representation on the landscape. The one exception may be coastal
 regions, where higher populations, control of some disturbance factors and land use patterns could prevent the



SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                               Page 16 of 23
 proportion of early successional forests from reaching earlier, natural levels. At the same time, late successional
 (LS) forests have become a relative rarity in New England, including Maine. Continuing loss of LS forests is
 likely to affect many wildlife species.

 According to the Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP), Maine is home to 24 ecosystem types and nearly 100
 distinct natural communities. About 25% of these natural communities are associated with timberlands.
 Although forest management practices have had the overall effect of simplifying Maine’s forest ecosystems, these
 forests still support bio-diverse communities. Maine’s forests are home to a wide range of wildlife species,
 including over 170 bird species and several mammals that are somewhat uncommon in other regions such as
 moose, martins, fishers and Canada lynx. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has recently proposed sections of
 Maine as critical habitat for the lynx. Atlantic salmon are an endangered species and some management practices
 within defined riparian zones along known spawning habitats are restricted. MNAP currently list 49 threatened
 or endangered species for Maine.

 4.4.    Socioeconomic Context

 The proportion of private ownership in Maine tends to increase as one travels south. The dominance of NIPF
 ownership has had a major influence on the condition of Maine’s forests. Population growth in northern New
 England increased by 71% between 1950 and 2000, however this growth trend has slowed over the past 30 years.
 Between 1970 and 1990, total population increased by only 5%, however the rural population grew by 13% over
 the same period reflecting the general trend of migration from urban areas to urban and suburban areas. Not
 unlike other predominantly rural states, Maine’s population has been increasing in age and by 2000 was the 7th
 oldest in the US. Maine’s median age in 2000 was 38.6 years, with only 24% of the population under 18 years
 old. Maine’s birthrate in 2002 was ranked 49 out of 50 states and 24% below the national average. As Maine’s
 population continues to age, coupled with the loss of younger residents, a decreasing segment of the population
 could be faced with supporting the needs of a disproportionately larger non-working and aging sector with
 increasing needs for health care and other social services. Exports from Maine have increased in value by 11% in
 each of the past two years (2003 & 2004) putting Maine at 9th in the nation in terms of rate of growth in exports
 over the past five years.

 Maine’s population is comparatively lacking in diversity. In 2000, over 96% of Maine residents were non-
 Hispanic white individuals as compared with a national average of 69%. While the national average is 11%, only
 3% of Maine residents were born outside the US in 2000.

 Maine’s early economy was dominated by fishing, trapping and farming. As Maine’s landscape has always been
 dominated by forests, the earliest factories in Maine were sawmills. With the strong maritime influence in Maine,
 shipbuilding became an important industry early in the State’s history. Maine experienced its economic ‘golden
 age’ in the middle part of the 19th century, as the economic base expanded significantly to include healthy
 industries in textiles, agriculture, fishing, shipbuilding and rock mining. Maine’s economic fortunes declined
 somewhat over the next 50 years, and forest products and textiles became mainstays of the state economy.
 During the latter part of the 19th century, tourism became an important industry, and has continued to increase in
 importance to the present. Though Maine’s economy now resembles that of the rest of the US in terms of its
 largest industries, several smaller industries are much more important to Maine than the rest of the country. For
 example, fishing is 17 times more important to Maine than the rest of the nation in terms of number of jobs, with
 leather manufacturing 16 times more important. Forestry, paper manufacturing and wood products manufacturing
 are 3 to 5 times more important in Maine than the national average.

 Maine’s economy outpaced the nation between 2000 and 2004, with less impact to Maine industries resulting
 from the 2001 recession. As a result, per capita personal income in Maine ranked 30th in the country by 2004, up
 from 34th in 2000. Maine’s economic growth has lagged the national over the past year. With Maine’s gross state
 economic growth at 0.9% during the summer months of 2005, the State ranked 41st in the nation. Industrial
 sectors posting the greatest gains in jobs were health services, leisure & hospitality, construction and
 trade/transportation/utilities. Manufacturing and financial services posted the largest declines. Health care
 spending in Maine has grown rapidly, with new healthcare initiatives introduced by the Governor to provide low




SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                                Page 17 of 23
 cost insurance coverage to low-income residents. In 2004, health care spending in Maine was almost 18% of the
 gross state product.

 The pulp and paper industry has been an important aspect of Maine’s economy, particularly in the northern and
 more rural counties. Difficult economic conditions in the paper industry have had negative consequences on
 several Maine communities with shuttering of paper machines, mill closures and land and asset divestitures.
 Concerns over the future of Maine’s forests Issues related to these land exchanges and potential effects to
 industries and communities has resulted in several statewide referendums (clearcutting, liquidation harvests) and
 have prompted the Governor to call for 70% of the state forests to pursue third party forest certification.

 The top priority emerging from a recent legislative conference on natural resources (Blaine House Conference on
 Natural Resources) was to preserve the resource base. Nature based tourism has emerged as a recent initiative of
 the Maine Department of Economic Development, further acknowledging the importance of both tourism and
 Maine’s natural resources, to the economic well being of the state.




SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                              Page 18 of 23
APPENDIX I: FSC Reporting Form- Detailed FMO information

SCOPE OF CERTIFICATE
Type of certificate:                           Group
SLIMF status:                                  Group SLIMF
      Number of group members (if applicable):    3
      Total number of Forest Management Units FMUs: 3

                Division of the FMUs within the scope:
                                     # of FMU-s                   total forest area FMU group
                < 100 ha             2                            36 ha (90 ac)
                100 – 1000 ha        1                            251 ha (619 ac)
                1000 – 10 000 ha     0                            0 ha
                > 10 000 ha          0                            0 ha
                SLIMF FMUs           3                            287 ha (709 ac)

      List of each FMU included in the certificate:
FMU                        FMU Owner                                Area        Forest Type
Moskowitz                  David Moskowitz                          250 ha      Northern Hardwood
Millay                     Tom Millay                               27 ha       Northern Hardwood/White
                                                                                Pine
NREC – Greenville            Natural Resource Center of Maine        9 ha       Mixed Hardwood/Softwood
Product categories included in the scope:
Type of product:                 Description
sawlogs                          Sawlog quality trees, felled and cut to length
pulpwood                         Pulpwood quality trees, felled and cut to length or chipped

FMO INFO
Location of certified forests                                 Latitude: W 69 degrees
                                                              Longitude: N45 degrees
Forest zone                                                   Temperate
Management tenure:                                            Fee Ownership
Number of FMO employees:                                      2.5
Number of forest workers (including contractors) working      3 (consulting foresters)
in forest within the scope of certificate:

Species and annual allowable cut
Botanical name          Common trade             Annual              Actual harvest in         Projected
                        name                     allowable cut       last year                 harvest for next
                                                                                               year
Pinus strobus               Eastern White Pine   Not applicable      None                      No harvests
                                                                                               planned
Picea rubens                Red Spruce           Not applicable      None                      No harvests
                                                                                               planned
Abies balsamea              Balsam fir           Not applicable      None                      No harvests
                                                                                               planned
Tsuga canadensis            Eastern Hemlock      Not applicable      None                      No harvests
                                                                                               planned
Betula papyrifera           Paper Birch          Not applicable      None                      No harvests
                                                                                               planned
Quercus rubra               Red Oak              Not applicable      None                      No harvests
                                                                                               planned



SmartWood Program       FM-02                                                                              Page 19 of 23
Fagus grandifolia                 American Beech              Not applicable             None                         No harvests
                                                                                                                      planned
Betula alleghaniesis              Yellow Birch                Not applicable             None                         No harvests
                                                                                                                      planned
Acer rubrum                       Red Maple                   Not applicable             None                         No harvests
                                                                                                                      planned
Acer saccharum                    Sugar Maple                 Not applicable             None                         No harvests
                                                                                                                      planned
Fraxinus americana                White Ash                   Not applicable             None                         No harvests
                                                                                                                      planned

FOREST AREA CLASSIFICATION
Total certified area                                                                                     287 ha
Total forest area in scope of certificate                                                                287 ha
    Forest area that is:
        Privately managed                 287 ha
        State managed                     0 ha
        Community managed                 0 ha

Area of production forests (areas where timber may be harvested)                                         287 ha
Area without any harvesting or management activities (strict reserves)                                   0 ha
Area without timber harvesting and managed only for production of                                        0 ha
non-timber forest products or services
Area classified as plantations2                                                                          0 ha

Area or share of the total production forest area                                 287 ha
regenerated naturally
Area or share of the total production forest area                                 0 ha
regenerated by planting or seeding
Area or share of the total production forest are                                  0 ha
regenerated by other or mixed methods

Conservation values present in the forest (High Conservation Value Forests or
HCVF) and respective areas
                                                                   Description:
                        HCVF Attributes                                                                                     Area (ha)
                                                                 Location on FMU
A forest contains globally, regionally or nationally
                                                                   None present                                                  0
significant: concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g.
endemism, endangered species, refugia)
A forest contains globally, regionally or nationally
                                                                   None present                                                  0
significant: large landscape level forests, contained within, or
containing the management unit, where viable populations of
most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural
patterns of distribution and abundance
They are in, or contain rare, threatened or endangered
                                                                   None present                                                  0
ecosystems


2
  According to FSC definition “plantations” in this context should be understood as forest areas lacking most of the principal characteristics and
key elements of native ecosystems as defined by FSC-approved national and regional standards of forest stewardship, which result from the
human activities of either planting, sowing or intensive silvicultural treatments.



SmartWood Program            FM-02                                                                                                    Page 20 of 23
They provide basic services of nature in critical or unique
                                                                  None present   0
situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control);
They are fundamental to meeting basic needs of local
                                                                  None present   0
communities (e.g. subsistence, health) and/or critical to local
communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural,
ecological, economic or religious significance identified in
cooperation with such local communities).




SmartWood Program    FM-02                                                           Page 21 of 23
APPENDIX II: Public summary of the management plan

Main objectives of the forest management are:
  Main priority: timber production
  Secondary priority: wildlife and recreation values
  Other priorities: education
Forest composition:
Tolerant hardwood species, mixed oak-pine, mixed hardwood/softwood, spruce-fir
Description of Silvicultural system(s) used:
Full range of silviculture generally employed on small woodlots. Intermediate treatments include light thinning
to promote quality and growth. Regeneration harvests include single and group selection and shelterwood.
                                 Silvicultural system                                  % of forest under this
                                                                                            management
Even aged management                                                                            50 %
  Clearcutting                                                                                   0%
  Shelterwood                                                                                   50 %
Uneven aged management                                                                          50 %
  Individual tree selection                                                                     50 %
  Group selection (group harvested of less than 1 ha in size)                                    0%
Other types of management                                                                        0%

Harvest methods and equipment used: chainsaw/cable skidder; mechanical harvesting, grapple skidder;
mechanical harvesting, forwarder
Estimate of maximum sustainable yield for main commercial species: Undetermined. Not applicable for
small woodlot management
Explanation of the assumptions (e.g. silvicultural) upon which estimates are based and reference to the
source of data (e.g. inventory data, permanent sample plots, yield tables) upon which estimates are based
upon: Inventory data are available for each parcel based on timber cruise with appropriate statistical rigor as
required by Maine Forest Service stewardship management plan standards.
Forest management organizational structure and management responsibilities from senior management
to operational level: TCNF Group Manager is responsible for overall conformance to FSC standards and group
management systems. Independent consulting foresters provide forest management services directly to
landowner members through pre-existing relationships. Individual landowners are members of TCNF Group.
Structure of forest management units: Parcel. Each property is owned by an individual or institutional
landowner.
Monitoring procedures: Periodic inventory, informal monitoring appropriate to the scale and intensity of small
woodlot management, informal monitoring conducted by landowners.
Environmental protection measures, e.g. buffer zones for streams, riparian areas, etc., protection
measures for Rare Threatened and Endangered Species and habitat: Buffer zones for streams and riparian
areas are delineated that meet or exceed state minimum regulatory and BMP requirements. Site review by
Maine Natural Areas Program required for every management plan.




SmartWood Program     FM-02                                                                              Page 22 of 23
SmartWood Program   FM-02   Page 23 of 23