Docstoc

SFI Certification Audit Report 2010

Document Sample
SFI Certification Audit Report 2010 Powered By Docstoc
					             NSF International Strategic Registrations
             Management Systems Registration

December 7, 2010

RE: SFI Certification Audit Report

Rebecca Barnard
Forest Certification Coordinator
MN DNR - Forestry
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4044

Dear Ms. Barnard:

I have incorporated the most of the editing changes requested. Please consider this to be the final
audit report.

It has been good working with you on this project.


Sincerely,



Mike Ferrucci
Office and Mobile: 203-887-9248
mferrucci@iforest.com
     SFI CERTIFICATION AUDIT
           FINAL REPORT
     Sustainable Forestry Initiative® Standard
                 2010-2014 Edition




                       for

    Minnesota DNR Minnesota DNR
         St. Paul, Minnesota

             December 7, 2010

    Mike Ferrucci, NSF Lead Auditor
                    NSF-ISR
             789 North Dixboro Road
              Ann Arbor, MI 48105
                  888-NSF-9000
                 www.nsf-isr.org


.
                Minnesota DNR SFI Summary Audit Report
                                       December 6, 2010


The SFI Program of the Minnesota DNR of St. Paul, Minnesota has achieved conformance with
the SFI Standard®, 2010-2014 Edition, according to the NSF-ISR SFIS Certification Audit
Process. The program was certified under the 2005-2009 SFI Standard in December, 2005. We
report on the successful re-certification to the new standard, which now has a 3-year certificate
life. Annual surveillance audits are still required.

The audit was performed by NSF-ISR on October 3 through 9, 2010 by an audit team headed by
Mike Ferrucci, Lead Auditor and which included
   • Dr. Robert J. Hrubes, FSC Lead Auditor, Forester
   • Paul Pingrey, Forester
   • JoAnn Hanowski, Wildlife Biologist
   • Jessica Leahy, Social Scientist
Audit team members fulfill the qualification criteria for conducting SFIS Certification Audits of
“Section 9. SFI 2010-2014 Audit Procedures and Auditor Qualifications and Accreditation”
contained in Requirements for the SFI 2010-2014 Program: Standards, Rules for Label Use,
Procedures, and Guidance.

The objective of the audit was to assess conformance of the firm’s SFI Program to the
requirements of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® Standard, 2010-2014.

The scope of the SFI 2010-2014 Standard Audit included the forest management portions of the
standard. Forest practices that were the focus of field inspections included those that have been
under active management over the past three years. In addition practices conducted earlier were
also reviewed as appropriate (regeneration and BMP issues, for example). In addition, SFI
obligations to promote sustainable forestry practices, to seek legal compliance, and to
incorporate continual improvement systems were within the scope of the audit.

Several of the SFI Performance Measures were outside of the scope of Minnesota DNR’s SFI
program and were excluded from the scope of the SFI Certification Audit as follows:
   • Indicator 2.1.4 involving planting exotic species
   • Indicator 2.1.7 involving planting non-forested areas
   • Indicator 3.2.5 involving situations where the state lacks BMPs
   • Objectives 8 through 13 for procurement

None of the indicators were modified; the SFI 2010-2014 Standard’s relevant indicators and
performance measures were used as published (available on-line at http://www.sfiprogram.org/).




                                                                                                    1
         Overview of Minnesota DNR’s Lands and Sustainable Forestry Programs:
Minnesota DNR manages 5.4 million acres of state lands throughout Minnesota, following an
interdisciplinary approach designed to integrate the harvesting of forest products, the provision
of wildlife habitat, the protection of special sites, and the provision of extensive recreational
opportunities. These lands encompass a variety of forest types, including aspen, white, red, and
jack pine, mixed lowland conifers, oak-hickory, and northern hardwoods. A variety of forest
products are produced, including timber, pulpwood, firewood, cabin logs, poles, and other
specialty products.

“Background: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) sought and obtained
dual forest management certificates on December 31, 2005 under two internationally recognized,
independent, credible forest management certification systems: the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). MN DNR’s certificates have since grown
from 4.47 to 4.96 million acres of state administered forestlands certified under the FSC standard
and 4.98 million acres certified under the SFI standard. MN DNR is one of the largest single
certificate holders in the country. Along with its counterparts in Wisconsin and Michigan, MN
DNR has been a leader in forest certification and combined, the Great Lakes States account for
over 50% of the forest acres in the United States certified under FSC. Currently, there are over 6
million acres of forestland in the state of Minnesota certified under FSC and/or the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative (SFI) program.

Forest management certification is consistent with MN DNR’s mission and responsibility ‘to
work with citizens to conserve and manage the state's natural resources, to provide outdoor
recreation opportunities, and to provide for commercial uses of natural resources in a way that
creates a sustainable quality of life.’ Therefore, MN DNR is looking to continue with its forest
management certification efforts.” Source: Request for Proposals, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources

Lands included in the SFI Certification =
4,979,253 acres comprised of:
   •   Forestry Administered
       4,078,843 acres
   •   Wildlife Administered
       787,387 acres
   •   Fisheries Administered Lands in
       Lake County 8,750 acres
   •   Wildlife Administered LUP
       (Land Utilization Project)
       81,673 acres
   •   Trails Administered Lands
       22,600 acres

Harvest levels over the past 10 years are
documented in Table 1.



                                                                                                    2
                                      SFIS Audit Process
NSF-ISR initiated the SFI audit process with a series of planning and readiness review phone
calls to confirm the scope of the audit, review the SFI Indicators and evidence to be used to
assess conformance, verify that Minnesota DNR was prepared to proceed to the SFIS
Certification Audit, and to prepare a detailed audit plan. NSF then conducted the SFIS Re-
Certification Audit of conformance to the SFI Standard. A report was prepared and final
approval was done by an independent Certification Board Member assigned by NSF.

The audit was governed by an audit plan designed to enable the audit team to efficiently
determine conformance with the applicable SFI requirements. The plan provided for the
assembly and review of audit evidence consisting of documents, interviews, and on-site
inspections of ongoing or completed forest practices.

During the audit NSF-ISR reviewed a sample of the written documentation assembled to provide
objective evidence of SFIS Conformance. NSF-ISR also selected field sites for inspection based
upon the risk of environmental impact, likelihood of occurrence, special features, and other
criteria outlined in the NSF-ISR SFI-SOP. NSF-ISR also selected and interviewed stakeholders
such as contract loggers, landowners and other interested parties, and interviewed employees
within the organization to confirm that the SFI Standard was understood and actively
implemented.

The possible findings of the audit included Full Conformance, Major Non-conformance, Minor
Non-conformance, Opportunities for Improvement, and Practices that exceeded the Basic
Requirements of the SFIS.

                                 Overview of Audit Findings
Minnesota DNR’s SFI Program was found to be in conformance with the SFIS Standard. One
new Minor Non-conformance was issued, the previous non-conformances were reviewed and
closed, and several opportunities for improvement were identified.

One new Minor Non-conformance was issued:
    • Indicator 4.2.2 requires “A methodology to incorporate research results and field
        applications of biodiversity and ecosystem research into forest management decisions.”
        The wildlife guidance document “Forestry-Wildlife Guidelines to Habitat Management”
        is not up-to-date.
Minnesota DNR has developed a corrective action plan for this issue. Progress in implementing
this corrective action plan will be reviewed in subsequent surveillance audits.

The NSF-ISR Audit team reviewed the previous (2009) non-conformances and corrective action
plans implemented by Minnesota DNR and closed them as described below:
    • Indicator 3.1.1 requires “Program to implement state or provincial equivalent BMPs
       during all phases of management activities.” Two sites had small amounts of slash
       deposited in wetlands contrary to the Minnesota Site Level Guidelines (BMPs).
       Minnesota DNR provided evidence that these sites were remediated and that training and
       supervision have been directed towards prevention of impacts to wetlands during


                                                                                                 3
       harvesting. However not all of the provisions of the preventive action plan have been
       fully rolled-out in all areas, so there is an opportunity to improve in this regard.
   •   Indicator 4.1.4 requires “Development and implementation of criteria, as guided by
       regionally appropriate science, for retention of stand-level wildlife habitat elements (e.g.,
       snags, mast trees, down woody debris, den trees, nest trees).”
       Implementation of the Minnesota Site Level Guidelines for retention of stand-level
       wildlife habitat elements, notably den trees and large/live and declining trees had been
       inadequate in meeting the spirit, intent, or detailed guidance within the published
       guidelines.
       Minnesota DNR provided evidence demonstrating significant efforts to improve leave
       tree practices which are becoming evident in completed harvests. Although more work
       remains to be done, the combination of formal and informal training, increased emphasis
       by management at all levels, and support from personnel from the Division of Wildlife
       and Fish and the Division of Ecology and Water Resources is having a notable effect in
       moving practices closer to the goals.
   •   Indicator 4.1.3 requires “Plans to locate and protect known sites associated with viable
       occurrences of critically imperiled and imperiled species and communities. Plans for
       protection may be developed independently or collaboratively and may include Program
       Participant management, cooperation with other stakeholders, or use of easements,
       conservation land sales, exchanges, or other conservation strategies.” Imperiled (G2)
       Native Plant Communities, while generally designated for special management are not
       automatically designated for such management. Plans for appropriate protection were not
       available for all such sites.
       Minnesota DNR provided evidence demonstrating the process for identifying and
       protecting all G1 and G2 sites is functioning. The department updated its records and
       maps of these sites, and improved the systems and tools used by forest managers to
       comply.

These issues should continue to be considered during all future audits.

Several opportunities for improvement were also identified. These findings do not indicate a
current deficiency, but served to alert the Minnesota DNR to areas that could be strengthened or
which could merit future attention. These are:
   •   SFI Indicator 1.1.4 requires “Periodic updates of forest inventory and recalculation of
       planned harvests to account for changes in growth due to productivity increases or
       decreases (e.g. improved data, long-term drought, fertilization, climate change, forest
       land ownership changes, etc.)”
           o There is an opportunity to improve currency of forest inventory information.
   •   SFI Indicator 2.3.5 requires “Retention of vigorous trees during partial harvesting,
       consistent with scientific silvicultural standards for the area.” Two opportunities for
       improvement related to this requirement:
          o There is an opportunity to improve by considering the use of uneven-aged
              silviculture in mesic hardwood stands.
          o There is an opportunity to improve protection of residual trees in some harvests.


                                                                                                   4
   •   SFI Indicator 2.3.7 “Road construction and skidding layout to minimize impacts to soil
       productivity and water quality.”
          o There is an opportunity to improve the program for addressing road and bridge
              needs on state forests.
   •   SFI Indicator 3.1.1 requires a “Program to implement state or provincial best
       management practices during all phases of management activities.”
          o There is an opportunity to improve the emphasis placed on avoiding locating
              landings near or in wetlands.
   •   SFI Indicator 4.1.4 requires the “Development and implementation of criteria, as guided
       by regionally appropriate best scientific information, to retain stand-level wildlife habitat
       elements such as snags, stumps, mast trees, down woody debris, den trees and nest trees.
       Two opportunities for improvement related to this requirement:
           o There is an opportunity to improve by incorporating legacy trees in the leave tree
              (aka reserve tree) guidelines and/or practices.
           o There is an opportunity to improve by retaining more ecologically effective
              structural and compositional retention in regeneration harvest blocks, e.g. more
              mature or over-mature trees.
   •   SFI Indicator 5.2.2 requires “Documentation through internal records of clearcut size and
       the process for calculating average size.”
           o There is an opportunity to improve the process for calculating clearcut size to
              ensure that the calculation is not overstating clearcut size.
   •   SFI Indicator 16.1.3 requires “Staff education and training sufficient to their roles and
       responsibilities.”
           o There is an opportunity to improve staff training on Minnesota Forest Resource
              Council’s Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines.
   •   SFI Indicator 20.1.2 requires a “System for collecting, reviewing, and reporting
       information to management regarding progress in achieving SFI 2010-2014 Standard
       objectives and performance measures.”
           o There is an opportunity to improve the Internal Audit Team process to ensure that
               issues uncovered during the Internal Audits are considered when setting the focus
               areas for subsequent Internal Audits.

These findings do not indicate a current deficiency, but served to alert Minnesota DNR to areas
that could be strengthened or which could merit future attention.

One previous OFI from 2009 also received attention:
   • SFI Indicator 3.1.4 requires “Monitoring of overall BMP implementation.” An
       opportunity to improve the BMP monitoring by more closely aligning first-party BMP
       monitoring protocols with statewide “all-ownership” monitoring protocols was identified.
       Minnesota DNR is working to modify the sale completion inspection forms and
       instructions to more closely emulate the statewide monitoring of the MFRC Site-Level


                                                                                                   5
       Forest Management Guidelines to allow more useful and reliable conclusions from which
       to determine possible program changes.

NSF-ISR also found that forestry practices on Minnesota DNR’s lands exceed the basic
requirements of the SFI Standard in the following areas:
   •   Minnesota DNR exceeds the SFI requirements for protection of threatened and
       endangered species. A significant array of measures to protect rare, threatened, or
       endangered species was demonstrated (Indicator 4.1.2).
   •   Minnesota DNR promotes recreational use of the forests and regularly modifies timber
       management to better accommodate such use. As such the SFI Standard is exceeded.
       (Performance Measure 5.4).
   •   The management review program, including the Internal Audit Team (IAT), the Forest
       Certification Implementation Team (FCIT), and internal and external BMP audits to
       identify and address issues relative DNR’s continued adherence to SFI standards is
       exceptional. (Performance Measure 20.1)
The audit team commends the Minnesota DNR for these exemplary practices and for the fine
work done throughout the organization to ensure that the lands under its stewardship are
sustainably managed.
Follow-up or Surveillance Audits are required by the 2010-2014 Sustainable Forestry Initiative
Standard ®. The initial Surveillance Audit is scheduled for September-October, 2011.




                       General Description of Evidence of Conformity
NSF’s audit team used a variety of evidence to determine conformance. A general description of
this evidence is provided below, organized by SFI Objective.

Objective 1. Forest Management Planning - To broaden the implementation of sustainable
   forestry by ensuring long-term forest productivity and yield based on the use of the best
   scientific information available.
Summary of Evidence –The evidence of conformance for this indicator included:
  • Subsection Forest Resource Management Plans (SFRMPs)
  • Minnesota Forest Resources Council (MFRC) Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines
      (BMPs)
  • Interdisciplinary Forest Management Coordination Framework
  • ECS Native Plant Community Keys and linked Silvicultural Interpretations
  • Minnesota Strategic Conservation Agenda
  • MFRC Landscape Program which developed recommended desired outcomes, goals, and
      strategies for six Sections in Minnesota, and
  • Inventory data and growth models.



                                                                                                 6
Objective 2. Forest Productivity - To ensure long-term forest productivity, carbon storage and
   conservation of forest resources through prompt reforestation, soil conservation,
   afforestation and other measures.
Summary of Evidence – Field observations and associated records were used to confirm
   practices. Minnesota DNR has programs for reforestation, for protection against insects,
   diseases and wildfire, and for careful management of activities which could potentially
   impact soil and long-term productivity.

Objective 3. Protection and Maintenance of Water Resources - To protect water quality in
   streams, lakes and other water bodies.
Summary of Evidence – Field observations of a range of sites were the key evidence. Auditors
   visited portions of selected field sites that were closest to water resources. MFRC Site-
   Level Forest Management Guidelines (BMPs) are also an important part of the program to
   protect water resources.

Objective 4. Conservation of Biological Diversity including Forests with Exceptional
   Conservation Value To manage the quality and distribution of wildlife habitats and
   contribute to the conservation of biological diversity by developing and implementing stand-
   and landscape-level measures that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest
   plants and animals, including aquatic species.
  • Summary of Evidence – Field observations, written plans and policies, use of college-
      trained field biologists, availability of specialists, and regular staff involvement in
      conferences and workshops that cover scientific advances were the evidence used to
      assess the requirements involved biodiversity conservation. The Interdisciplinary Forest
      Management Coordination Framework ensures that biodiversity issues are considered in
      forest management planning.

Objective 5. Management of Visual Quality and Recreational Benefits - To manage the
   visual impact of forest operations and provide recreational opportunities for the public.
Summary of Evidence – Field observations of completed operations and the implementation of
   policies for visual quality including road zoning were assessed during the evaluation.
   Further maps of recreation sites, combined with field visits, helped confirm a strong
   recreation program.

Objective 6. Protection of Special Sites - To manage lands that are ecologically, geologically,
   or culturally important in a manner that takes into account their unique qualities.
Summary of Evidence – Field observations of completed operations, records of special sites,
   training records, and written protection plans were all assessed during the evaluation. One
   key factor was The Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) conducted county-by-
   county to search for rare plants, animals, and communities.

Objective 7. Efficient Use of Forest Resources - To promote the efficient use of forest
   resources.
Summary of Evidence – Field observations of completed operations, contract clauses, and
   discussions with supervising field foresters and with loggers provided the key evidence.

                                                                                                  7
    Foresters monitor utilization during all harvests. The Division of Forestry operates a
    Utilization and Marketing Program.

Objective 14. Legal and Regulatory Compliance -
Compliance with applicable federal, provincial, state and local laws and regulations.
Summary of Evidence – Field reviews of ongoing and completed operations were the most
   critical evidence. Regulatory compliance has been very strong.

Objective 15. Forestry Research, Science, and Technology - To support forestry research,
   science, and technology, upon which sustainable forest management decisions are based.
Summary of Evidence – Financial records were confirmed; research support includes in-kind
   (use of lands) and direct financial support through the Minnesota SFI Implementation
   Committee.

Objective 16. Training and Education -To improve the implementation of sustainable forestry
   practices through appropriate training and education programs.
Summary of Evidence – Training records of selected personnel, records associated with harvest
   sites audited, and logger interviews were the key evidence for this objective. Minnesota
   DNR provides support for the Minnesota Logger Education Program.

Objective 17. Community Involvement in the Practice of Sustainable Forestry -
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by encouraging the public and forestry
    community to participate in the commitment to sustainable forestry, and publicly report
    progress.
Summary of Evidence – Interviews with staff and stakeholders, mailing lists, agendas for
    meetings, and selected summaries of comments received were sufficient to assess the
    requirements.

Objective 18: Public Land Management Responsibilities -
To support and implement sustainable forest management on public lands.
Summary of Evidence – Interviews and review of correspondence were used to confirm the
    requirements. This includes significant public involvement opportunities during the
    development of Subsection Forest Resource Management Plans (SFRMPs).

Objective 19. Communications and Public Reporting - To broaden the practice of sustainable
   forestry by documenting progress and opportunities for improvement.
Summary of Evidence – Reports filed with SFI Inc. and the SFI Inc. website provided the key evidence.

Objective 20. Management Review and Continual Improvement - To promote continual
   improvement in the practice of sustainable forestry, and to monitor, measure, and report
   performance in achieving the commitment to sustainable forestry.
Summary of Evidence – Records of program reviews and internal audits, agendas and notes
   from management review meetings, and interviews with personnel from all involved levels
   in the organization were assessed.




                                                                                              8
                               Relevance of Forestry Certification
Third-party certification provides assurance that forests are being managed under the principles
of sustainable forestry, which are described in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard as:
1. Sustainable Forestry
To practice sustainable forestry to meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs by practicing a land stewardship ethic that
integrates reforestation and the managing, growing, nurturing and harvesting of trees for useful
products and ecosystem services such as the conservation of soil, air and water quality, carbon,
biological diversity, wildlife and aquatic habitats, recreation, and aesthetics.
2. Forest Productivity and Health
To provide for regeneration after harvest and maintain the productive capacity of the forest land
base, and to protect and maintain long-term forest and soil productivity. In addition, to protect
forests from economically or environmentally undesirable levels of wildfire, pests, diseases,
invasive exotic plants and animals and other damaging agents and thus maintain and improve
long-term forest health and productivity.
3. Protection of Water Resources
To protect water bodies and riparian zones, and to conform with best management practices to
protect water quality.
4. Protection of Biological Diversity
To manage forests in ways that protect and promote biological diversity, including animal and
plant species, wildlife habitats, and ecological or natural community types.
5. Aesthetics and Recreation
To manage the visual impacts of forest operations, and to provide recreational opportunities for
the public.
6. Protection of Special Sites
To manage forests and lands of special significance (ecologically, geologically or culturally
important) in a manner that protects their integrity and takes into account their unique qualities.
7. Responsible Fiber Sourcing Practices in North America
To use and promote among other forest landowners sustainable forestry practices that are both
scientifically credible and economically, environmentally and socially responsible.
8. Avoidance of Controversial Sources including Illegal Logging in Offshore Fiber
Sourcing
To avoid wood fiber from illegally logged forests when procuring fiber outside of North
America, and to avoid sourcing fiber from countries without effective social laws.
9. Legal Compliance
To comply with applicable federal, provincial, state, and local forestry and related environmental
laws, statutes, and regulations.
10. Research
To support advances in sustainable forest management through forestry research, science and
technology.


                                                                                                      9
11. Training and Education
To improve the practice of sustainable forestry through training and education programs.
12. Public Involvement
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry on public lands through community involvement.
13. Transparency
To broaden the understanding of forest certification to the SFI 2010-2014 Standard by
documenting certification audits and making the findings publicly available.
14. Continual Improvement
To continually improve the practice of forest management, and to monitor, measure and report
performance in achieving the commitment to sustainable forestry.

Source: Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI) Standard, 2010-2014 Edition

                                  END OF PUBLIC REPORT



                            Other Required Information
Note: The remaining portions of this SFI Audit Report are not part of the Summary Report
required by SFI, Inc. and thus may be kept confidential at the discretion of the SFI Program
Participant.

Audit Team
The audit team is fully qualified to conduct the SFI Certification Audit, with an understanding of
the forest industry, certification requirements of the SFI Standard, and of sustainable forestry
practices within your region. Qualifications of audit team members are described in the Audit
Plan.

Confidentiality
NSF requires all auditors to adhere to strict agreements regarding confidentiality and prohibiting
consulting during audits. A copy of this agreement is available from NSF on request.

Scope of Audit
The scope statement to appear on the certificate is as follows:
       Forest management on Minnesota DNR’s forestry lands, wildlife lands except for
       the Prairie Province, Lake County fisheries lands, Scientific and Land Utilization
       Project (LUP) lands, and related sustainable forestry activities covered by the SFI
       2010-2014 Standard. Scientific and Natural Areas (SNAs) and State Parks are
       excluded. The SFI Certificate Number is NSF-SFIS-6Y921.

NSF-ISR SFI Audit Process and Reporting
The NSF-ISR Audit Report consists of all documents used in the audit process, including the
Readiness Review, the Tentative Audit Plan, and the Re-Certification Audit documents. The


                                                                                                10
findings of the Readiness Review Report including the Document Review were provided
previously.

The actual NSF-ISR SFI Certification Audit was governed by a detailed Audit Plan that was
prepared specifically for your SFI Audit. The Audit Plan is included here as Section A (with
various Attachments). The Audit Plan was focused on helping the audit team determine whether
there were any deficiencies and inconsistencies between your SFI Program and the SFIS
requirements that apply to your organization.

As described in the Audit Plan, the objective of the audit was to assess conformance of your SFI
Program to the requirements of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® Standard, 2010-2014
Edition. The possible findings of the audit included Full Conformance, Major Non-
conformance, Minor Non-conformance, Opportunities for Improvement, and Practices that
exceeded the Basic Requirements of the SFIS. The detailed spreadsheets addressing the above
findings are contained in the SFI Certification Audit Matrix (Section B). Any non-conformances
were fully documented and reported using the NSF-ISR Corrective Action Request process.
Your organization can access these through the NSF On-line system.

NSF-ISR also identified a number of forest practices and operations that exceed the basic
requirements of the SFI Standard. These practices are documented in the SFI Certification Audit
Matrix and summarized in the Public Report. Your organization is to be commended for
performance above and beyond the basic requirements of the SFIS in the areas specified.

Completion of Certification Process
This complete Final Report is the sole property of your organization and will be treated with the
utmost confidentiality and privacy. The report is intended for use by your organization in
understanding your conformance with the SFI Standard and for purposes of improving your SFI
Program. NSF may provide copies of the report to audit team members.

The Public Audit Report provides a summary of the audit results intended for public disclosure.
If necessary, NSF’s SFI Program Manager can work with your designee to modify the summary,
consistent with SFI requirements, to meet your needs. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative®
Standard requires the following:
    “A Certified Program Participant shall provide a report to the SFI Inc. not less than two
    weeks after the successful completion of certification, recertification, or surveillance
    audit to the 2010-2014 SFI Standard. The public report will be posted on the SFI Inc.
    website and available for public review.”

The Lead Auditor may, at your direction, provide a copy of the final SFI Public Report to SFI,
Inc. NSF must also provide the SFI Reporting Form (Section C) to SFI, Inc; the data from the
form are posted on various certification-tracking websites.

You are responsible for informing NSF immediately regarding any change to your program or
ownership that would affect the accuracy of the certificate. NSF will work with you to
accommodate these changes.



                                                                                                 11
Within 4 to 8 weeks NSF-ISR will issue a formal Certificate of Conformance to the SFI Standard
to your organization. The Certificate includes the NSF-ISR Logo, your organization’s name, the
standard certified to, the date of the certification, and signatures of responsible authorities.

Follow-up or Surveillance Audits are required by the 2010-2014 Sustainable Forestry Initiative
Standard ®. The Surveillance Audits can be conducted in the continuous or standard format.
The initial Surveillance Audit is scheduled for late September or early October, 2011. The
assigned lead auditor will contact you 2 months prior to this date to reconfirm and begin
preparations.

Certification Report Sections:
Section A     Audit Plan
Section B     SFI Certification Audit Matrix
Section C     SFI Reporting Form




                                                                                             12
                                         Section A
                                         Audit Plan

Note: A “Preliminary Audit Plan” was provided in the July 12, 2010 certification proposal from
NSF (and SCS). The following are excerpts, with additional and/or revised items included that
were provided or developed prior to the audit.

Advance Notice for Audit Planning and Field Site Selection
All SCS/NSF audit planning will be completed in a manner that allows at least two months
advance notice of the audit focus topics, dates, general locations (Forestry Area / WMA), criteria
used to select specific field sites, requested or necessary documentation, and a list of MN DNR
staff expected to participate in the audit. SCS/NSF will work with MN DNR to select field sites
and will provide 3 weeks advance notice of tentative field site selection- additional field sites
may be selected on the day of the audit. For any changes made to the audit plan, SCS/NSF will
seek comment from MN DNR.

The field sampling method and stakeholder consultation is described in more detail below under
the heading “Audit planning”.

The steps/phases of the of the recertification assessment are described below in four categories:
Preparatory Communications and Document Review; Audit Planning; Collection of Information,
Synthesis and Conformity Findings; Certification Decision and Reporting.
The audit team leaders will initiate telephone dialogue with pertinent MN DNR personnel for
purposes of the following:
•      Identifying and obtaining relevant documentation pertaining to forest properties and MN
       DNR’s management of the respective programs;
•      Identifying key stakeholders to contact;
•      Identifying key MN DNR (and related agency) field personnel to interview;
•      To begin desk review of pertinent documents, including Michigan Statutes,
       Administrative Code, and Operational Handbooks, among others.

As described earlier, the SCS/NSF-ISR audit team already has considerable in-depth knowledge
of the suite of MN DNR documents that address the certification standards’ requirements. This
familiarity will help ensure that MN DNR’s collection of documents will be correctly credited as
evidence of conformance with the FSC and SFI standards, where such credit is appropriate.




                                                                                               13
Audit Planning
An initial teleconference meeting will be held to present the goals and methods of the audit
protocols, introduce key participants, and to develop the audit plan. A major objective of audit
planning is to identify the field sample, starting with the selection of Forest Management Units
(FMU) to visit during the audit. These are selected by a combination of random and directed
selection (random selections are modified to ensure reasonable audit travel times).

For each selected DNR Area Office and WMA similar random and directed site selections will
be made. The MN DNR will be asked to provide lists of potential sites for review by Area.
Those lands with significant timber management, vegetation treatment sites (harvest or cultural
treatments) provide a logical sampling framework. On these properties, starting from a full list
of such treatment sites a sample provides the backbone of an audit “tour”; nearby sites will be
added illustrating as full a range of other management activities as time allows.

Examples of management practices that will be focused on include:
•     Regeneration timber harvests
•     Commercial and Pre-commercial thinning operations
•     Conservation Areas
•     Wildlife Habitat Enhancement/Restoration
•     Stand establishment
•     Public use management
•     Landscape planning
•     Watercourse Management Zone protection strategies
•     Cultural resource identification and protection strategies
•     Recreation facility (e.g., trails, campgrounds) development and maintenance

Collection of Information
The next phase of the recertification evaluation is to gather information that will enable the audit
team to arrive at judgments as to the extent to which the condition and management of MN DNR
Administered Forests comply with the standards of certification. This is accomplished through:
interviews with MN DNR personnel, review of pertinent documents, and sample-based field
inspections. (Note: Our auditors will require personal protective safety equipment while in the
field, consistent with MN DNR requirements for your employees and contractors. At minimum
hard hats will be worn at all active logging sites.)

SCS/NSF-ISR existing in-depth understanding of how the state forests are managed will ensure
that the team triages to allow for more time on complicated and deserving issues. Furthermore,
the team’s familiarity will minimize the amount of time that MN DNR staff need to spend
explaining basic aspects of their programs and presenting conformance evidence on requirements
where SCS/NSF-ISR understand non-conformance to be of low risk (e.g., payment of fees).

Our auditors are skilled at drawing out information from field audit participants. General
questions are asked, with follow-up detailed questions. Questions are directed at key staff who
we believe should know how to respond; when they can’t answer, the question is redirected to a
higher-level person. Some people can freeze when asked a question in a large group; our

                                                                                                   14
auditors know how to identify this issue and will find a way to get the information in a less-
stressful environment if possible. Daily orientation and exit briefing sessions are opportunities to
lower the anxiety level, ensure that the audit proceeds in a professional and comfortable manner,
and in the exit briefings allows issues to be readdressed if more time was needed to gather
complete information or if MN DNR responders feel that they did not fully and clearly express
their knowledge and experience.

Also, prior to and during the field assessments, per FSC protocols, one or more members of the
team will consult with a range of pertinent stakeholders (e.g., government representatives,
contractors, environmental and conservation non-governmental organizations, recreation user
groups, trade association representatives) to obtain input on how these individuals/groups view
DNR’s management. Stakeholder consultation will be conducted prior to and during the
assessment.

To efficiently complete this work task, requirements placed upon MN DNR are to:

•      Provide SCS/NSF-ISR with pertinent documentation and data that describes the forest
       resource and the management programs that are implemented on the land;
•      Make available to the assessment team pertinent MN DNR management, planning and
       field personnel;
•      Provide to SCS/NSF-ISR the names and contact information of pertinent stakeholders,
       including recreational user groups, environmental groups, trade groups, contractors and
       suppliers;
•      Dedicate sufficient personnel and resources to independently develop any management
       system components that are currently lacking.

Synthesis and Conformity Findings
Under the FSC process, after document review, field inspections, and stakeholder consultations,
the audit team sequesters to translate the team’s judgments into conformance decisions for each
of the criteria that constitute the evaluation standard. Conformance decisions are reached
through a consensus process amongst all members of the evaluation team. SCS/NSF-ISR have
found consensus decision making to be the most effective method of translating each team
member’s observations into a decision as to whether or not there is conformance with a given
FSC criterion. Although corrective action requests (CARs) do not stipulate a specific approach
with detailed steps, as that would constitute consultative services, they are specific enough for
the landowner to take the necessary actions to comply with the deficiency. Both SCS and NSF-
ISR are committed to and have a track record of working with all certificate holders to ensure
that issued CARs are achievable, while credibly addressing the non-conformance. It is not in the
interest of either the FSC or SFI programs to issue CARs to a certificate holder that are simply
not feasible because of unrealistic timelines or requirements.

In addition to CARs, the team may offer Observations. These are suggested actions that help the
forest managers to move even further toward exemplary status. Actions on the recommendations
are voluntary and do not affect the award or maintenance of the certificate.



                                                                                                 15
The SFI process involves review of the management systems and their implementation to
determine conformance to all of the relevant SFI Performance Measures and Indicators. The
auditors inform the Minnesota DNR’s designated representative immediately if a non-
conformance is likely or being considered. This allows MN DNR to bring additional
information for consideration or to clarify any misunderstanding.

Certification Decision and Reporting
Under FSC, the decision as to whether recertification can be awarded is based on the overall
conformance with each Criterion. Major CARs are issued for Criterion-level non-conformances
and minor CARs are issued for Indicator level non-conformances. FSC recertification will be
awarded if there are no Major CARs issued during the recertification or any Major CARs that are
issued are sufficiently addressed prior to the expiration dates for the certificates. SFI
Recertification can be awarded immediately if there are no Major Non-conformances and if the
program has developed Corrective Action Plans for any Minor Non-conformances. Major Non-
conformances must be closed quickly to allow continuing certification.

The results of the recertification audit and overall certification decisions will be preliminarily
communicated to MN DNR in a joint closing meeting following the on-site audit. At the closing
meeting the SFI non-conformances will be provided and the status of audited program with
respect to SFI Certification will be presented. FSC CARs will be discussed but are not likely to
be finalized during the closing meeting. Instead, they will be conveyed along with the draft
report within timeframes allowed by audit protocols. After departing from the project site, the
audit team will then prepare certification evaluation reports that present the team’s findings,
recommendations and FSC CARs in final form. The justification for any stipulated CARs will
be detailed in the assessment report.

Subsequent Joint Surveillance Audits
SCS and NSF-ISR will conduct annual concurrent FSC and SFI audits:
       A – Audit Planning                       C – On-site Inspection
      B – Document Request and Review           D – Report

The above annual surveillance audit tasks will be completed with a three-person team and follow
similar approaches as described for Re-certification. For consistency and continuity purposes,
the audit team for the annual audit will include at least one team member from the original
assessment team. More likely all three auditors for the annual surveillance audit team will have
been on the recertification assessment.

Audit planning will be done in a similar fashion as with the re-certification. The Area Offices to
visit will be identified in advance, and will be clustered somewhat for travel efficiency.
Likewise Document Request and Review, On-site Inspections, and Reporting will follow similar
approaches as with the re-certification. One important difference is that annual audits will
attempt to cover only a subset of the two sets of requirements, and follow-up on any outstanding
non-conformances (if there are any) will be the first priority for each annual audit.

Annual surveillance audit reports will include a full report of each audit. Details of all findings,
conditions, etc. will be included. MN DNR will be provided 30 day period to review and

                                                                                                   16
comment on a draft surveillance audit report before it is finalized. Surveillance audit reports will
be finalized within 90 days of the field audit.

Field Audit Schedule
       October 03 (Sunday)                        Travel & Audit Team Meeting
       Oct. 04-08 (Monday-Friday)                 Field Audit
       Oct. 08-09 (Fri.pm-Saturday a.m.)          Team Meets for Analysis and Scoring
       October 12 (Tuesday)                       Closing Briefing- to be conducted via phone
       November 1 (Monday)                        Follow-up briefing

Reporting Schedule (as of audit planning; schedule was subsequently revised)
November 08: Draft reports provided to MNDNR
December 06: Comments due from MN DNR
December 10: Comments incorporated into final reports for SCS and NSF Review
December 21: SFI and FSC Re-certifications (if warranted)

Summary On-Site Assessment Schedule for Recertification Audit:
    DAY           AM                                  PM/Evening
       Sunday         Audit team travels to MSP                   Audit team meeting
       Oct 3
       Monday         Opening meeting in St. Paul                 Travel to two Area Offices in NE &
       Oct 4          Overview presentation by DNR                NW
                      Interviews with specialists
       Tuesday        Team A (3 auditors)- NW Region              1st NW Area Audit (continues)
       Oct 5          1st NW Area: Office and Field Visit

                      Team B (2 auditors)- NE Region              1st NE Area Audit (continues)
                      1st NE Area: Office and Field Visit
       Wednesday      Team A (3 auditors)- NW Region              2nd NW Area Audit (continues)
       Oct 6          2nd NW Area: Office and Field Visit

                      Team B (2 auditors)- NE Region              2nd NE Area Audit (continues)
                      2nd NE Area: Office and Field Visit
       Thursday       Team A (3 auditors)- NW Region              3rd NW Area Audit (continues)
       Oct 7          3rd Area (Brainerd)– Office & Field Visit

                      Team B (2 auditors)- NE Region              NE Region Audit (continues):
                      Office and Field Visit
       Friday         All Auditors -                              Afternoon and Evening Synthesis
       Oct 8          Central Region - Office and Field Visit     and overall deliberations begin
                      Carlos Avery WMA Tour

       Saturday       Synthesis/Decision making continues         Synthesis/Decision making
       Oct 9                                                      continues
                                                                  Afternoon: Auditors travel home

       Tuesday        AM: Exit meeting and presentation via
       Oct 12         webinar/conference call




                                                                                                       17
  Audit Agenda Details:
                                                    Monday, October 4
  Focus                                          Opening Meeting
 Location             Grand Rapids - MIFC Training Room (Address: 402 SE 11th St., Grand Rapids)
  Time                        10:30am - 4:00pm (Audit Team leaves Twin Cities by 6:45am)
                          Commissioners' Office                                          Regional Directors
              Division Directors (FOR - FAW - ECO - PAT - ENF)                Region Managers (FOR - FAW - ECO - PAT - ENF)
Attendance
                        Program Supervisors (TBD)                                     Regional Specialists (TBD)
                                   FCIT Members                                              HCVF Workgroup Members

  Event         Opening Meeting & Regional Presentations                            Date 10:30-10-4-10            Time
                                                                                         4:30
 Location      Minnesota Interagency Fire Center (MIFC), 402 SE 11th St., Grand Rapids, MN
               Training Room – 2nd Floor
               Introductions & Opening Statements;
               Provide and discuss MN DNR’s responses to open and recently closed CARs;
 Purpose
               Discuss conformance to new indicators in FSC & SFI Standards (Led by auditors);
               Various Programmatic Updates & Region Overview Presentations;

   TIME      AGENDA ITEM                                                                       DISCUSSION LEADER
  10:30      Safety Briefing                                                                   Olin Phillips
                                                                                               Commissioner, Division Directors,
  10:35      Introductions & Opening Statements
                                                                                               Barnard, & Auditors

             Provide & Discuss MN DNR’s CAR Responses
             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------     Jon Nelson
             SFRMP Plan Completion & Implementation (FSC Minor 2007.6)                         ---------------------------------------
             Representative Ecosystems (FSC Major 2009.1)                                      Kurt Rusterholz
             High Conservation Value Forests (FSC Minor 2009.4)                                ---------------------------------------
  11:15 –
             G1-G2 Native Plant Communities (SFI Minor 2009.3 & FSC Minor                      Rebecca Barnard
  12:30
             2009.5)                                                                           ---------------------------------------
             Leave Tree Retention for Wildlife Elements (SFI & FSC Minor                       Kurt & Mike Locke
             2009.2)                                                                           ---------------------------------------
             Site-level Guideline Implementation (SFI Minor 2009.1 & FSC                       Cynthia Osmundson
             2009.3)                                                                           ---------------------------------------
                                                                                               Rebecca & Mike
             WORKING LUNCH BREAK
  12:30      ---------------                                                                   Auditors
             Begin FSC & SFI Standard Review

  1:00       FSC & SFI Standard Review                                                         Auditors




                                                                                                                                         18
           Program Updates (~ 10 min each)
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Site-Level Guideline Monitoring, Training, etc.
2:15-                                                                                          Dick Rossman
           Timber Sales
3:00                                                                                           Lillian Baker
           Forest Health, Invasive Species, Silviculture, & ECS
                                                                                               Alan Jones
           Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS)
                                                                                               Carmen Converse
           Grouse Management
                                                                                               Ted Dick

           Region Overviews & Presentations (~ 10 min each)                                    Region Managers
           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------       ---------------------------------------
           Region 1 (NW): Forestry                                                             Dave Thomas
           Region 1 (NW): Fish & Wildlife                                                      Paul Telander
3:00 –
           Region 2 (NE): Forestry                                                             Jim Rupert
4:00
           Region 2 (NE): Fish & Wildlife                                                      Jeff Lightfoot
           Region 1 & 2: Ecological & Water Resources                                          Bob Leibfried
           Region 1 & 2: Parks & Trails                                                        Paul Maurer
           Region 1 & 2: Enforcement                                                           Jeff Koehn
4:00       Q&A                                                                                 Auditors
4:20       Closing                                                                             Barnard & Auditors



                                                           Tuesday, October 5
  Auditors           Audit Crew A (Robert Hrubes - Lead)                                   Audit Crew B (Mike Ferrucci - Lead)
   Focus                      Tower Area Audit                                                    Baudette Area Audit
   Times                     Start Time = 8:00am                                                  Start Time = 8:30am
                                                        Area & Regional Forestry & Wildlife Staff
                                                           Region Ecological Resources Staff
 Attendance
                                                                  Parks & Trails Staff
                                                                    Enforcement Officer(s)?



                                                        Wednesday, October 6
  Auditors           Audit Crew A (Robert Hrubes - Lead)                                   Audit Crew B (Mike Ferrucci - Lead)
   Focus                      Hibbing Area Audit                                                  Blackduck Area Audit
                     Start Time = 8:00am @ Eveleth FOR
   Times                            Office                                                         Start Time = 8:00am
                                                               Area Forestry & Wildlife Staff
                                                             Region Ecological Resources Staff
 Attendance
                                                                    Parks & Trails Staff
                                                                    Enforcement Officer(s)?




                                                                                                                                         19
                                              Thursday, October 7
  Auditors                  Audit Crew A & B (1 Audit Crew in Crow-Wing County; 1 in Aitkin County)
    Focus                                         Aitkin Area Audit
   Times                  Start Time = 8:00am @ Firehall in Aitkin (Address: 109 1st Ave NW)
                             Area Forestry Staff                                   Area Wildlife Staff
 Attendance           Region Ecological Resources Staff                            Parks & Trails Staff
                          Enforcement Officer(s)?                                     Others - TBD



                                                Friday, October 8
  Auditors                                        Audit Crew A & B
    Focus                                      Carlos Avery WMA Tour
   Times                    Start Time = 8:30am                      End Time = 1:30pm
                       Region* & Area Forestry Staff                               Area Wildlife Staff
 Attendance           Region Ecological Resources Staff                            Parks & Trails Staff
                          Enforcement Officer(s)?                                     Others - TBD
      *        Central Region Managers / Staff are encouraged to participate on Oct. 8th vs. Oct 4th in Grand Rapids.

Note: The morning of each Area Audit will begin with an introductory presentation and safety briefing from the
Area Forest / Wildlife Supervisor. Staff participating in the audit should be present.




                                                                                                                 20
Audit Team
The certification audit will be conducted by an audit team comprised of the following
professionals:
    • Dr. Robert J. Hrubes, Lead Auditor
    • Mike Ferrucci, Lead Auditor
    • Paul Pingrey, Forester
    • JoAnn Hanowski, Wildlife Biologist (Lead Report Author)
    • Jessica Leahy, Social Scientist

Robert J. Hrubes, Ph.D.
Proposed Role: FSC Lead Auditor
      Dr. Hrubes is a California registered professional forester (#2228) and forest economist
      with over 30 years of professional experience in both public and public forest
      management issues. He is presently Senior Vice-President of Scientific Certification
      Systems. In addition to serving as team leader for the Michigan State Forest evaluation,
      Dr. Hrubes worked in collaboration with other SCS personnel to develop the
      programmatic protocol that guides all SCS Forest Conservation Program evaluations. Dr.
      Hrubes has previously led numerous SCS Forest Conservation Program evaluations of
      North American public forests, industrial forest ownerships and non-industrial forests, as
      well as operations in Scandinavia, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand.
      Dr. Hrubes holds graduate degrees in forest economics, economics and resource systems
      management from the University of California-Berkeley and the University of Michigan.
      His professional forestry degree (B.S.F. with double major in Outdoor Recreation) was
      awarded from Iowa State University. He was employed for 14 years, in a variety of
      positions ranging from research forester to operations research analyst to planning team
      leader, by the USDA Forest Service. Upon leaving federal service, he entered private
      consulting from 1988 to 2000. He has been Senior V.P. at SCS since February, 2000.

Michael Ferrucci
Proposed Role: SFI Lead Auditor
      Mike Ferrucci has over 30 years of experience in the forestry industry with expertise
      ranging from sustainable forest management planning and certification to the application
      of easements for large-scale working forests. He also holds expertise in the ecology,
      silviculture, and management of mixed species forests. Mr. Ferrucci co-founded The
      Conservation Forestry Network, which focuses on the conservation of forest biodiversity
      at multiple levels.

       Ferrucci has conducted audits of forest management operations throughout the United
       States and abroad, with field experience in 4 countries and 30 U.S. states, including 7
       field audits of the Michigan State Forest System. He has worked with the Northern
       Forest Protection Fund and is a member of the Society of American Foresters. Ferrucci
       currently serves as Past Chair of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Auditor’s
       Forum.

       Ferrucci has conducted Chain of Custody audits for all segments of the forest products
       industry, including printers, corrugated and box producers, integrated paper companies,

                                                                                                 21
       paper distributors, solid wood mills, engineered wood products facilities, brokers, and
       distributors. This includes addressing issues involving recycled content.

       Ferrucci currently serves as SFI Program Manager for NSF International Strategic
       Registrations (NSF-ISR) where he is responsible for all aspects of the SFI Certification
       program. He is qualified as a Lead Auditor to conduct Chain of Custody, Procurement
       System or Sustainable Forest Management audits under the Sustainable Forestry
       Initiative Standard® (SFI), the Forest Stewardship Program (FSC), and the Tree Farm
       Group Certification programs. Ferrucci is also credentialed as a Lead Auditor under
       RAB-QSA (ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems) and is a Greenhouse Gas
       Lead Auditor.

Jessica Leahy
Proposed Role: Audit Team Member, Social Science, Forestry Specialist
       Jessica Leahy is an Assistant Professor in the School of Forest Resources at the
       University of Maine. She is also a Tourism Fellow at the Maine Center for Tourism
       Research and Outreach. She has an Honors B.S. degree in Forest Recreation Resources
       from Oregon State University with a concentration in environmental interpretation, an
       M.S. degree in Forest Resources from Oregon State University with a minor in
       environmental and resource economics, and a Ph.D. in Natural Resources Science and
       Management from the University of Minnesota in the economics, policy, society and
       management track. Jessica teaches in the Parks, Recreation and Tourism program
       offering courses in outdoor recreation management, environmental interpretation, and
       issues and ethics of parks, recreation & tourism. Her research is broadly in the human
       dimensions of natural resources field and includes studies in: social psychological aspects
       of family forest landowners (including forest certification), trust in natural resource
       organizations, social capital and civic engagement in public involvement processes,
       media effects, and land use change impacts on parks, recreation and tourism. Jessica
       Leahy has served on several FSC/SFI joint audits including the State of Maine BPL 2006
       Recertification.

Paul Pingrey
Proposed Role: Audit Team Member, Forestry
       Paul Pingrey is a forester with extensive experience in sustainable resource certification,
       public land management and family woodland management. He is currently self-
       employed as a consulting forest policy analyst and works as an auditor for Scientific
       Certification Systems and NSF-International. Pingrey retired from the Wisconsin
       Department of Natural Resources in December 2009 after more than 35 years of service.
       Most recently, he served in Division of Forestry administrative positions as the DNR
       Forest Certification Coordinator, Private Forestry Specialist and the Wisconsin Forest
       Tax Law Supervisor. From 2004 to 2009, Pingrey managed Forest Stewardship Council,
       Sustainable Forest Initiative, and American Tree Farm System certification for 6 million
       acres of DNR forestry programs. He was also a certification advisor to the
       Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest and a member of the Wisconsin SFI
       Implementation Committee. In 2008-2009, Pingrey served on national panels that
       developed the FSC-US Family Forest Standard and revised the American Tree Farm

                                                                                                 22
       Standard. For 20 years he worked directly with small woodland owners in six southern
       Wisconsin counties, including eleven years as the Madison Area Forestry Supervisor. His
       duties also included operation of a state park, management of state wildlife areas,
       property master planning, environmental impact assessment, and management of the
       Juneau County Forest. He has served in numerous Wisconsin Society of American
       Foresters leadership positions and was chair of the National SAF Certification Working
       Group. Pingrey received a forest management degree from Iowa State University in 1974
       and completed U.S. Forest Service Silviculturist Certification in 1988.

JoAnn Hanowski
Proposed Roles: Audit Team Member, Wildlife Biology and Ecology;
      JoAnn M. Hanowski is a senior research fellow at the University of Minnesota-Duluth’s
      Natural Resources Research Institute. She has considerable expertise evaluating the
      effects of forest management on wildlife habitat, and is currently working on research
      projects involving the response of birds to various forest management practices in stream
      and seasonal pond buffers and the development of indicators of forest and water health
      and sustainability in Minnesota and across the Great Lakes. She was a member of the
      forest bird technical team for the original GEIS and participated on the wildlife technical
      team that wrote forest management guidelines for Minnesota. She is a participant in a
      14-year project for monitoring avian populations on the Chequamegon National Forest.
      She is currently a member of the riparian science technical committee that is
      investigating the effectiveness of Minnesota’s current guidelines for forest management
      in riparian systems. She has published 64 peer-reviewed journal articles and over 75
      reports in her 21 year tenure with the University of Minnesota. In 2005 JoAnn
      participated in the largest forest certification project ever conducted in the United States,
      the joint FSC/SFI certification of Minnesota’s state lands. In 2006 and 2006 JoAnn
      added regional ecological expertise to the annual surveillance audits of the MN DNR’s
      FSC and SFI certificates.




                                                                                                 23
           Section B
SFI Certification Audit Matrix




                                 24
                             NSF-ISR SFI 2010-2014 MATRIX INCLUDING GUIDANCE FOR TRANSITION REQUIREMENTS

Findings and Instructions:
C                  Conformance
Exr                Exceeds the Requirements
Maj                Major Non-conformance
Min                Minor Non-conformance
OFI                Opportunity for Improvement (can also be in Conformance)
NA                 Not Applicable
Likely Gap *       Likely GAP Against 2010-2014 SFIS*
Likely Conf. *     Likely Conformance With 2010-2014 SFIS*
                   * for programs evaluated against 2005-2009 SFIS, likely conformance is assessed against the new requirements with
                   SFIS 2010-2014; where there is a “Likely Gap” a “transitional non-conformance is issued; the program’s transition
                   action plan (aka corrective plan) must be assessed.
Auditor            Optional; may be used for audit planning.
10                 Date Codes, for example: 10= October 2010
Other              Words in italics are defined in the standard.
                   Portions underlined are modified within the 2010-2014 SFI Standard from similar elements of the older version.

Partial List of Abbreviations Used:
APA      Annual Plan Amendments                                                       MCBS    Minnesota County Biological Survey
ASEL Annual Stand Examination Lists                                                   MFI     Minnesota Forest Industries
DFC      Desired Future Condition                                                     MFRC    Minnesota Forest Resources Council
DFFC Desired Future Forest Condition                                                  MLEP    Minnesota Logger Education Program
ECS      Ecological Classification System                                             OFMC    Old Forest Management Complex
EILC Environmentally Important Lowland Conifers                                       RMZ     Riparian Management Zone
ERF      Extended Rotation Forest                                                     RTE     Rare, Threatened, Endangered (species)
FCIT Forest Certification Implementation Team                                         SFEC    Sustainable Forestry Education Cooperative
FIA      Forest Inventory and Analysis                                                SFRMP   Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan
FMG Forest Management Guidelines                                                      SGCN    Species of Greatest Conservation Need
FRIT Forest Resources Issues Team                                                     SLG     MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines
GEIS Minnesota Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Forestry                    SMZ     Special Management Zones
HCVF High Conservation Value Forest                                                   SNA     Scientific and Natural Area
IAT      Internal Audit Team                                                          WMA     Wildlife Management Area
LTA      Land Type Association


                                                                                                                                             25
Objective 1. Forest Management Planning
To broaden the implementation of sustainable forestry by ensuring long-term forest productivity and yield based on the use of the best scientific
information available.

                                                                                     Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                     Gap *       Conf. *
                                                                                       MF          10
 1.1       Program Participants shall ensure that forest management plans
           include long-term harvest levels that are sustainable and
           consistent with appropriate growth-and-yield models.
 Notes     Short and long-term harvest levels are estimated within the Subsection Forest Resource Management Plans (SFRMP). These estimated harvest
           levels appear sustainable and generally consistent with FIA data and growth and yield models. The approach is a form of area control, with
           information about growth rates and potential long-term sustainable harvest levels available to confirm that the planned harvest levels are at or
           below long-term allowable harvest determinations. For each stand (bottom up analysis) the year of harvest and the harvest prescription are made
           after consideration of stand age and volume, stand type, the normal rotation age or thinning interval, goals for Extended Rotation Forests, goals for
           type change, and efforts to move forests towards a more balanced age-class distribution.
           A harvest planning computer model is used to develop the harvest plan that forms the core of the SFRMP. This model is based on the widely-used
           Woodstock-Stanley software that allows for spatial and non-spatial constraints around a volume-driven objective function. Most constraints are
           ecological or economic, including goals to minimize fragmentation, create larger stands or patches, develop corridors, change overall forest cover
           type composition or age-class structure, or maintain stands within desirable stocking ranges and/or close to optimum rotation ages. Some social
           goals are included, mainly for recreation and aesthetics.
           Annual harvest levels are computed by totaling acres and projected volumes from stand treatment lists derived from the Subsection Planning
           process and further refined into Annual Stand Examination Lists (ASEL). The ASEL is then used by managers to direct individual foresters to
           examine (cruise) stands, develop prescriptions, and set up sales (appraisal process). The sum of all of the ASELs for the ownership comprises the
           annual harvest level. Changes in ASEL lists can be based on initiatives driven by operational considerations, and economic or ecological goals.
           Care must be taken to ensure that these changes do not compromise the overall sustainable harvest level.
           Not all of the appraised (offered) stands are sold and harvested. Acres and volumes offered have occasionally exceeded long term planned levels
           because some offered acres/volumes from unsold sales are carried forward. Actual acres/volumes harvested are the more appropriate metric, and
           are used in the remainder of this SFI conformance matrix to portray conformance with the requirements.
           The 2008 “DNR Sustained Timber Yield” analysis (Executive Summary and full report available) found that under current practices and policies,
           average annual long-term sustained yield for the 50 year planning horizon is approximately 863,000 cords. The analysis also recognized that there
           is potential to raise this level, to over 1,000,000 cords/year, with additional investments in forest management. The analysis also analyzed the
           impacts of several Department policies and practices on sustained yield levels. Actual harvests have averaged 772,000 cd/yr.
           There is also a top-down analysis: From “Executive Summary – Sustainable Timber Yield Analysis, Christopher R Schwalm – Research
           Scientist (DNR), Revised March 31, 2008”: “The resulting schedule represented the highest sustainable harvest level over the 50-yr period subject
           to constraints that reflect how DNR-administered timberlands are currently managed. Over the 50-yr planning horizon the sustainable harvest
           level averaged 863,000 cd yr-1 with a slight upturn 40-yr into the projection. The average harvest area was c. 58,000 ac per annum.” This
           analysis also provides scenarios for more intensive management which lead to higher potential average sustainable harvest levels.

                                                                                                                                                                   26
                                                                                Audit   C        EXR   Maj   Min   OFI   Likely   Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                or                                       Gap *    Conf. *
        (Performance Measures bold)
        Forest management planning at a level appropriate to the size and       MF,         10
1.1.1
        scale of the operation, including:                                      PP
         a. a long-term resources analysis;
         b. a periodic or ongoing forest inventory;
         c. a land classification system;
         d. soils inventory and maps, where available;
         e. access to growth-and-yield modeling capabilities;
         f. up-to-date maps or a geographic information system;
         g. recommended sustainable harvest levels for areas available for
             harvest; and
         h. a review of non-timber issues (e.g. recreation, tourism, pilot
             projects and economic incentive programs to promote water
             protection, carbon storage, bioenergy feedstock production, or
             biological diversity conservation, or to address climate-induced
             ecosystem change).




                                                                                                                                            27
Notes   A compendium of planning documents, including databases, documents, and plans, covers the issues, including the new non-timber issues listed in
        item h. These planning documents and resources include:
            •   MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines (BMPs)
            •   Interdisciplinary Forest Management Coordination Framework, December 2007 lists the laws and the integration processes
            •   ECS Native Plant Community Keys and linked Silvicultural Interpretations
            •   Minnesota Strategic Conservation Agenda
            •   Minnesota Forest Resources Council (MFRC) Landscape Program which developed recommended desired outcomes, goals, and strategies
                for six Sections in Minnesota.
            •   Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan
            •   SFRMP, including the one-page document that provides the highlights
            •   ASEL selection process involving several divisions
            •   Harvest plans, which are provided on the internet: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/harvesting/plans.html
            •   Forest Management Habitat Guidelines (1985, has not been revised, somewhat replaced by Site Level Guidelines)
            •   Species-specific plans or guidelines: Grouse Management, Timber Rattlesnake, Red-shouldered Hawk, Four-toed Salamander
            •   Wildlife Management Area (WMA) plans of several kinds:
                    o Land Type Association plans
                    o Traditional property-specific plans
                    o Web-based data sheet overviews
            •   OHV plan
            •   Peatland SNA Watershed Protection Area
            •   Ecologically Important Lowland Conifers (EILC)
            •   Property-specific Water Management Plans
            •   Minnesota State Plan for Invasive Species
            •   Invasives policy, with varying guidelines by division
            •   Pesticide policy, with varying guidelines by division
            •   Biomass Guidelines
            •   Visual Quality BMPs
            •   Records of legal status / land designations which may include Trust, Consolidated Conservation, Purchased, Land Utilization Program
                (federal), WMAs, Fisheries Lands,
            •   Old-growth sites (shape-file in GIS) and guidelines
            •   Sites of RTE (shape-file in GIS)
            •   Cultural Resource Information (shape-file in GIS)
            •   High Conservation Value Forests (HCVF) locations (maps)

                                                                                                                                                          28
        Documentation of annual harvest trends in relation to the sustainable     MF          10
1.1.2
        forest management plan in a manner appropriate to document past and
        future activities.
Notes   Actual Annual Harvest Levels (cords)
        10-Year Average = 720,000 cords
                2010: 795,000
                2009: 744,000
                2008: 814,000
                2007: 642,000
                2006: 687,000
                2005: 727,000
                2004: 723,000
                2003: 749,000
                2002: 627,000
                2001: 692 ,000
        Source: Division of Forestry Timber Sale Program Performance FY 2010 through June 30, 2010. This was provided in the opening meeting by
        Lillian Baker to the audit team; revised slightly based on information provided later. Actual harvests have averaged 772,000 cds/yr.
        Woodstock/Stanley modeling runs project harvests 50 years into the future.
        The 2008 “DNR Sustained Timber Yield” analysis (Executive Summary and full report available) which incorporated average constraints and
        management parameters directed in SFRMP plans, found that under current practices and policies, average annual long-term sustained yield is
        approximately 863,000 cords. The analysis also recognized that there is potential to raise this level, to over 1,000,000 cords/year with additional
        investments in forest management. The analysis also analyzed the impacts of several Department policies and practices on sustainable timber yield
        levels.
        SFRMP implementation reports include database printouts and summary information “from SRM, FIM, TSR, and annual stand exam lists for years
        from FY2004 or FY2005 forward (i.e., first year of Agassiz Lowlands SFMRP implementation) that is available, complete, and reliable. There is
        also a brief summary of what trends the data may be showing relative to intended activities and progress towards broad subsection goals.” A
        review of these reports confirmed that the SFI requirement is now met. Of particular note are the “ brief summary of what trends the data may be
        showing relative to intended activities and progress towards broad subsection goals” and the “brief summary analysis” provided for each of the
        four SFRMPs.

                                                                                 Audit    C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                 -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
        A forest inventory system and a method to calculate growth and yield.     MF          10
1.1.3



                                                                                                                                                              29
Notes   See Indicator 1.1.2 above (growth) and Indicator 1.1.4 below (inventory). Growth curves for modeling are based on FIA data, adjusted for
        measured growth deceleration in older stands (state lands contain sufficient older stands to have re-calibrated the models and slightly lowered
        growth curves for older stands). Confirmed the use of Woodstock and Stanley computer growth and harvest schedule models, which model out for
        50 years.

                                                                               Audit    C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI      Likely    Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                               -or                                                   Gap *     Conf. *
        Periodic updates of forest inventory and recalculation of planned       MF          10
1.1.4
        harvests to account for changes in growth due to productivity
        increases or decreases (e.g. improved data, long-term drought,
        fertilization, climate change, forest land ownership changes, etc.).




                                                                                                                                                          30
Notes   A portion of each Areas' forests are re-inventoried each year in one of two primary ways: as part of the ASEL-related harvest planning process, or
        by means of inventory projects/contracts/or work done by area personnel unrelated to the ASEL. Up to 20% of the forests in each area have
        inventory data that is more than 20 years old.
            •    Table produced from FIM by Clarence Turner. Alterations are counted toward the inventory goal.
                          Fiscal Year        Re-Inventory       Alterations      Total               Target
                          2006               139,334            43,987           185,327             104,416
                          2007               134,245            54,445           190,697             104,416
                          2008               146,140            73,116           221,264             104,416
                          2009               127,562            68,864           198,435             148,839
                          2010               78,383             61,428           141,821             167,202
            •    Information provided by Dave Heinzen, Resource Assessment (who helps accomplish inventory, not set targets): “Ten years ago we set
                 targets based on an inventory rotation age per cover type. The rational (for this was that) the years between needing to re-inventory
                 between Aspen and Black Spruce is not the same. That gave us a target of 117,000 acres per year. It was driven by using the following
                 guidelines. We used this approach in setting targets until last year.
                      o    40 year rotation for Ash, White Pine, Red Pine.
                      o    30 year rotation for White Spruce, Black Spruce lowland, White cedar, and Black Spruce uplands.
                      o    20 year rotation for all other cover types.
        All stands are assessed in the field immediately prior to development and implementation of any harvest, treatment or project. This allows for a
        “real-time” adjustment of planned harvests, based primarily on the “area-control” method.
        Interviewed managers and foresters regarding Baudette FMA’s use and understanding of SFRMP monitoring information. Recent monitoring
        results have influenced the three-year SFRMP extension, by showing that some goals would need to be pursued more aggressively.
        Additional stand selections are made to ASEL; confirmed “DNR Notice of Annual Plan Additions FY2011 No. 1” on Internet. The Document is
        dated August 27, 2010 and comments were requested before September 26, 2010. Reasons given for adding the stands include salvage, stand
        adjacent to other stands, wildlife habitat, mistyped, fire, density, research, and advanced decline. This document provides legal description, acres,
        cover type, prescription, and a key to the prescriptions.

                                                                                   Audit    C         EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
        Documentation of forest practices (e.g., planting, fertilization, and       MF          10
1.1.5
        thinning) consistent with assumptions in harvest plans.




                                                                                                                                                                31
 Notes      The GEIS completed in 1995 contains widely-reported potential productivity levels based on potential investments in productivity. The Woodstock
            –Stanley model does not include growth rates from projected productivity increases; instead it is based mostly on empirical (actual) past growth.
            Thus there is no “allowable cut effect”. Instead the team focused on efforts to control stocking and ensure regeneration, which appear to be
            consistent with the model’s assumptions.


Objective 2. Forest Productivity.
To ensure long-term forest productivity, carbon storage, and conservation of forest resources through prompt reforestation, soil conservation, afforestation and other
measures.
                                                                                       Audit C          EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely       Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                       -or                                                   Gap *        Conf. *
            Program Participants shall promptly reforest after final harvest.          MF,         10
 2.1
                                                                                       PP

 Notes      See indicators.



                                                                                      Audit    C         EXR      Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                      -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
            Designation of all harvest areas for either natural regeneration or by     MF,         10
 2.1.1
            planting.                                                                  PP

 Notes      ASEL and harvest planning process.
            Natural regeneration is the primary method; planting is done when natural regeneration fails to develop adequate stocking.

                                                                                      Audit    C         EXR      Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                      -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
            Reforestation, unless delayed for site-specific environmental or forest    MF,     10
 2.1.2
            health considerations or legal requirements, through planting within       PP
            two years or two planting seasons, or by planned natural regeneration
            methods within five years.
 Notes      Natural regeneration is the primary method; planting is done when natural regeneration fails to develop adequate stocking.
            Jack Pine regeneration can be delayed for 3 to 5 years or longer, but is generally reliable. Jack pine regeneration delays are more common in the
            northwestern areas.




                                                                                                                                                                         32
                                                                                   Audit    C         EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                     Gap *       Conf. *
        Clear criteria to judge adequate regeneration and appropriate actions       MF,         10
2.1.3
        to correct understocked areas and achieve acceptable species                PP
        composition and stocking rates for both planting and natural
        regeneration.
Notes   Regeneration targets exist; for some types (e.g. Jack Pine on certain sites) biologists and ecologists are advocating lower targets to more closely
        mimic natural stand conditions, particularly in areas close to the prairie province.
        There are one, three and ten-year regeneration surveys of stands artificially and naturally regenerated. This information is stored in the FORIST
        system.
        Follow-up treatments were observed for areas that had experienced regeneration delays.


                                                                                   Audit    C         EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                     Gap *       Conf. *
        Minimized plantings of exotic tree species, and research                    MF,         10
2.1.4
        documentation that exotic tree species, planted operationally, pose         PP
        minimal risk.
Notes   Exotic trees are not planted.



                                                                                   Audit    C         EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                     Gap *       Conf. *
        Protection of desirable or planned advanced natural regeneration            MF,         10
2.1.5
        during harvest.                                                             PP

Notes   Confirm protection of desirable regeneration by field observations.



                                                                                   Audit    C         EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                     Gap *       Conf. *
        Planting programs that consider potential ecological impacts of a           JH,         10
2.1.6
        different species or species mix from that which was harvested.             MF,
                                                                                    PP



                                                                                                                                                                 33
Notes   Harvest decisions, especially those done in advance of planting that is done to convert to different types, are based on the ECS.
        SFRMPs are backed by significant analysis of cover types and trends, DFC, and conservation needs, including habitat needs of species / groups or
        guilds of species. These plans are in turn based on the MFRC’s Landscape planning by Section that was based on the range of natural variability
        ecological concept.
        SFRMP process involves several disciplines; review by foresters, supplemented by optional joint field review including biologists and ecologists,
        occurs during the sale planning process.

                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI        Likely   Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                       Gap *    Conf. *
        Afforestation programs that consider potential ecological impacts of       JH,      N.A.
2.1.7
        the selection and planting of tree species in non-forested landscapes.     MF,
                                                                                   PP
Notes   N.A. Confirmed by interview and by field observations that trees are not planted in non-forested landscapes.



                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI        Likely   Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                       Gap *    Conf. *
        Program Participants shall minimize chemical use required to               MF,          10
2.2
        achieve management objectives while protecting employees,                  PP
        neighbors, the public and the environment, including wildlife and
        aquatic habitats.
Notes   Minnesota DNR’s vegetation management approaches are consistent with minimized chemical use. “Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
        Division of Forestry Pesticide Use Guidelines” which describes these key operational standards:
            • Operational Order 59 – Pesticides and Pest control
            • Division of Forestry Pesticide Guidelines
            • Pesticide Labels
            • Material Safety and Data Sheets (MSDS) for each pesticide and adjuvant being used or recommended
            • Forest Resources Council Site Level Forest Management Guidelines
        Written prescriptions are developed, including use of written forms requesting authorization (for aerial use the authorization must come from the
        Minnesota DNR Commissioner. See indicators.

                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI        Likely   Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                       Gap *    Conf. *
        Minimized chemical use required to achieve management objectives.          MF,          10
2.2.1
                                                                                   PP



                                                                                                                                                               34
Notes
          6000
          5000
          4000
          3000
          2000
          1000
              0
                  FY99
                         FY00
                                FY01
                                       FY02
                                              FY03
                                                     FY04
                                                            FY05
                                                                   FY06
                                                                          FY07
                                                                                 FY08
                                                                                        FY09
                                                                                               FY10
                                   Site Prep                Release

        Use of pesticides by the Division of Forestry over the past 12 years has been stable, averaging 3,017 acres. Use of deer repellant has been more
        recent. FY 2004 was the first year (857 acres); FY 2007 a recent peak (1865 acres); and FY 2010 was a low use year (935 acres).
        Reports on pesticide use on Fish and Wildlife Lands for 2009 (Regions 1, 2, and 3) were reviewed. Most use is for site preparation or for control of
        invasives. Treatments were applied to between 900 and 1000 acres.
        No pesticides were used on Fisheries administered lands in St. Louis County (the only Certified lands managed by Fisheries).
        In many FM areas (Baudette, Black Duck) experienced foresters report a 20-year trend of reduced chemical use. Chemical site preparation or
        release is done as a last resort. Mechanical site preparation is the preferred approach. Chemical release is applied to release planted trees.


                                                                                                      Audit   C        EXR   Maj   Min   OFI   Likely   Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                                      -or                                      Gap *    Conf. *
        Use of least-toxic and narrowest-spectrum pesticides necessary to                             MF,         10
2.2.2
        achieve management objectives.                                                                PP




                                                                                                                                                                  35
Notes   Required by law and by policy. Program relies on the FSC Highly Hazardous Pesticides list to avoid the use of the most toxic chemicals.
        Following is the list of herbicides, adjuvants, and repellants reported used for calendar year 2009 excluding state forest nurseries. No other class of
        pesticide was reported used on state forestry lands. This list does not report what the Division of Wildlife used on their lands nor what was used by
        MN Dept. of Agriculture for gypsy moth control.
                           -    Accord (Glyphosate)                             -    Pendulum                               -    Pathway (Picloram)
                           -    Garlon (Triclopyr)                              -    Goal                                   -    Choice (adjuvant)
                           -    Oust (Sulfometuron)                             -    Fusilade                               -    Envoy (adjuvant)
                           -    Transline                                       -    Intensity One                          -    Entrée (adjuvant)
                           -    Milestone                                       -    Tordon 101R                            -    Plantskydd
                                                                                     (Picloram)                                  (repellant)

                                                                                    Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
        Use of pesticides registered for the intended use and applied in            MF,          10
2.2.3
        accordance with label requirements.                                         PP

Notes   Confirmed by interviews and by review of label at pesticide site.



                                                                                    Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
        Use of integrated pest management where feasible.                           MF,          10
2.2.4
                                                                                    PP

Notes   Required by law and by policy. Stands are generally properly stocked; assessments of forest health incidents determine causes before treatments
        are selected; salvage harvests, etc.

                                                                                    Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
        Supervision of forest chemical applications by state- or provincial-        MF,          10
2.2.5
        trained or certified applicators.                                           PP




                                                                                                                                                                  36
Notes   Confirmed the applicator’s licenses of the three Minnesota DNR employees present at the Carlos Avery WMA tour who apply chemicals their
        work. A pesticide use authorization form is completed. It includes weather parameters and map, buffer setbacks from neighbors and other
        appropriate precautions. Training and certification are required.

                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *       Conf. *
        Use of management practices appropriate to the situation, for              MF,          10
2.2.6
        example:                                                                   PP
                a. notification of adjoining landowners or nearby residents
                concerning applications and chemicals used;
                b. appropriate multilingual signs or oral warnings;
                c. control of public road access during and immediately
                after applications;
                d. designation of streamside and other needed
                buffer strips;
                e. use of positive shutoff and minimal-drift spray valves;
                f. aerial application of forest chemicals parallel to buffer
                zones to minimize drift;
                g. monitoring of water quality or safeguards to ensure
                proper equipment use and protection of streams,
                lakes and other water bodies;
                h. appropriate storage of chemicals;
                i. filing of required state or provincial reports; and/or
                j. use of methods to ensure protection of threatened and
                endangered species.
Notes   Confirmed by interviews with staff and contract applicators that management practices appropriate to the situation are used, including most from
        the above list. Also the document “State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, 2010 Aerial Herbicide Application, Natural Resource
        Development Project” contained most of the above provisions in the specifications.
        A pesticide use authorization form is completed. It includes weather parameters and map, buffer setbacks from neighbors and other appropriate
        precautions.
        “Good Neighbor Policy - The Use of Bt to Control Insect Outbreaks” is a component of “Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of
        Forestry Pesticide Use Guidelines” that specifies how Bt would be used on state lands to support similar use on adjacent private lands.
        An excerpt: “Division of Forestry's "good neighbor policy" will allow the spraying of Bt to control Forest Tent Caterpillar on state forest lands
        bordering private lands. See Appendix 6.5 for additional details of this policy.”

                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *       Conf. *



                                                                                                                                                                37
        Program Participants shall implement forest management                       MF,          10
2.3
        practices to protect and maintain forest and soil productivity.              PP

Notes   See indicators.



                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR         Maj   Min    OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                  Gap *      Conf. *
        Use of soils maps where available.                                           MF,          10
2.3.1
                                                                                     PP

Notes   Soils maps, where available in digital form (most counties with lands in scope), are routinely used by foresters and others when planning treatments
        and projects.

                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR         Maj   Min    OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                  Gap *      Conf. *
        Process to identify soils vulnerable to compaction, and use of               MF,          10
2.3.2
        appropriate methods to avoid excessive soil disturbance.                     PP

Notes   ECS and/or use of soils and topographic maps for initial planning.
        Site reconnaissance prior to finalizing harvest plan; site limitations considered when developing harvest boundaries.
        Excluding sensitive soils for sale area and/or including seasonal restrictions in timber sale contracts.

                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR         Maj   Min    OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                  Gap *      Conf. *
        Use of erosion control measures to minimize the loss of soil and site        MF,          10
2.3.3
        productivity.                                                                PP

Notes   Field observations confirm that erosion control measures, specifically soil and water protection BMPs contained in the MFRC Site-Level Forest
        Management Guidelines, are routinely and widely employed.
        Foresters and loggers, and some but not all biologists, are trained on MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines. Some of this training last
        occurred more than 10 years ago (see 16.1.3 for an Opportunity for Improvement related to training in Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines).

                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR         Maj   Min    OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                  Gap *      Conf. *

                                                                                                                                                               38
        Post-harvest conditions conducive to maintaining site productivity          MF,         10
2.3.4
        (e.g. limited rutting, retained down woody debris, minimized skid           PP
        trails).
Notes   Field observations confirm minimized or dispersed skid trails, very little rutting and significant retained down woody debris in completed harvests
        reviewed by the audit teams.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR       Maj    Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                   Gap *      Conf. *
        Retention of vigorous trees during partial harvesting, consistent with      MF,         10                              10 (2)
2.3.5
        scientific silvicultural standards for the area.                            PP

Notes   There is an opportunity to improve by considering the use of uneven-aged silviculture in mesic hardwood stands.
        There is an opportunity to improve protection of residual trees in some harvests.
        Confirmed retention of vigorous trees during partial harvesting by field observations in all but one case.
        Second site in Crow Wing County (Sale B010922) there was considerable and excessive residual stem damage; commercial thin in an oak harvest;
        MCBS Outstanding Site; forester had noted the problem in the TS records and had informed the logger to expect a penalty. Also no butt mark was
        used to designate trees ok to harvest in this “mark to cut” harvest.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR       Maj    Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                   Gap *      Conf. *
        Criteria that address harvesting and site preparation to protect soil       MF,         10
2.3.6
        productivity.                                                               PP

Notes   Confirmed awareness of rutting guidelines, and that foresters work with loggers to ensure they are met, mostly by mitigation, but also by enforcing
        rutting provisions in contracts.
        “Rutting standards have been developed to provide staff foresters and timber sales administrators with measurable metrics for applying the rutting
        guidelines to forest management activities on DNR-administered state lands.” Source: Interdisciplinary Forest Management Coordination
        Framework, December 2007
        Biomass harvesting is increasing, but the guidelines for retaining coarse woody debris on biomass harvesting sites are fairly new, and the 2010
        audit included few biomass sites. The 2011 Surveillance audit should review this issue and the following statement: “For the MFRC biomass
        harvest guidelines, greater consideration should be given to exceeding the guidelines specifically in salvage operations and in MCBS sites of high
        or outstanding biodiversity significance and other ecologically sensitive sites. Training programs and demonstration sites will be used to
        communicate when, how, and where the MFRC woody biomass guidelines will be applied, and DNR will continually evaluate the science on the
        impacts of biomass harvesting and will adapt management as necessary.” Source: Interdisciplinary Forest Management Coordination Framework,
        December 2007


                                                                                                                                                              39
                                                                                 Audit    C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                 -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
        Road construction and skidding layout to minimize impacts to soil         MF,         10                                10
2.3.7
        productivity and water quality.                                           PP

Notes   There is an opportunity to improve the program for addressing road and bridge needs on state forests.
        A 2010 MN Legislative Audit report (http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2010/nrlandsum.htm) found that, "The Department of Natural
        Resources (DNR) appears to lack adequate resources to manage and maintain its current land holdings" and that there is an" $8 million
        backlog of road and bridge needs for state forests." Some managers report that road maintenance funding is barely adequate, with work done
        only as absolutely needed. Road grading and roadside frequency is being reduced. Funding for new construction or re-construction is limited, with
        project funds allocated to the highest priority projects.
        Layout of haul and skid roads is done in ways that minimize soil and water productivity.
        Road and trail use by OHVs is managed carefully. Efforts to educate users and to enforce regulations for motorized recreational vehicles have
        increased significantly in recent years, and impacts to roads, trails, and resources are decreasing.
        Section “Identifying New Access Needs in SFRMP” within “SFRMP Staff Guidebook IV Revised January 1, 2008” provides direction on planning
        for access roads; confirmed that the “North Shore SFRMP - 5.11 - Final Plan Document” includes
        “New Access Needs
        The primary purpose of identifying new access needs in SFRMP planning is to provide a rough estimate of general location, miles, and type of new
        access needed to implement the 10-year plan. The preliminary access needs information also:
         provides a rough assessment of new st te forest road construction needs for budget development
                                              a
         identifies access that will require a USFS road use permit or special use permit North Shore SFRMP - 5.12 - Final Plan Document
        addresses access, habitat fragmentation, and road density concerns via post-sale access management intentions on the estimated new access/new
        temporary access.
        The scope of identifying new access needs in an SFRMP is limited to:
         estimating the miles of new state forest road and new temporary access needed to access stands identified for treatment in the SFRMP
         identifying (tagging) stands for which new access is needed.”


                                                                                 Audit    C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                 -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *




                                                                                                                                                             40
        Program Participants shall manage so as to protect forests from             MF,         10
2.4
        damaging agents, such as environmentally or economically                    PP
        undesirable wildfire, pests, diseases and invasive exotic plants and
        animals, to maintain and improve long-term forest health,
        productivity and economic viability.
Notes   Forests within the scope are managed with a forest health focus. Rotations are generally kept short enough to maintain vigorous stands, particularly
        for the types most prone to health issues that can significantly affect timber productivity (Aspen and Jack Pine). Efforts to deal with invasive exotic
        organisms, particularly insects, are ongoing. Some extended rotations allow for increased risk of damage by forest pests, but managers are well
        aware of the tradeoffs, with ecological reasons justifying longer rotations.


                                                                                   Audit    C         EXR      Maj       Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Program to protect forests from damaging agents.                            MF,         10
2.4.1
                                                                                    PP

Notes   The forest inventory, stand selection, stand examination, and prescription processes, led by foresters who have training in forest health, comprise
        one key aspect of the forest protection program. Forest health specialists provide monitoring, detection, and diagnostic services, and are available
        for on-site consultation as needed. An extensive fire program is a third key component of the forest protection program.
        Forest Health is covered in subsection planning, including assessments, strategies, and practices. For example: “North Shore Highlands, Toimi
        Uplands, and Laurentian Uplands Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan, Strategic Direction and Stand Selection Results” in Issue 7.
        Forest Pests, Pathogens and Exotic Species:
        DFFC 1. Limit damage to forests from insects, disease, and exotic species to acceptable levels where feasible. Strategies:
        a. Identify and monitor insect, disease, and harmful exotic species populations as part of the Forest Health Monitoring Program and document their
        occurrence on state-managed lands.
        b. Manage existing forest insect and disease problems, as appropriate.
        c. Manage stands to reduce the potential impact of insects and diseases.
        d. In extended rotation forest (ERF) stands, a higher level of impact may be accepted as long as it does not jeopardize the ability to regenerate the
        stand to the desired forest cover type or the management goals of the surrounding stands.”


                                                                                   Audit    C         EXR      Maj       Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Management to promote healthy and productive forest conditions to           MF,         10
2.4.2
        minimize susceptibility to damaging agents.                                 PP



                                                                                                                                                                  41
Notes   Field observations allowed the audit team to conclude that forest management practices are developing and maintaining healthy forests in most
        areas. Most stands observed were properly stocked to slightly over-stocked; overstocked stands are prioritized when developing stand exam lists.
        Oak wilt, gypsy moth, and Asian emerald ash borer are current key concerns, with measures in place to deal with each of these and many other
        forest pests. These measures include monitoring and pest impact evaluation, preventative actions (sanitation cuttings) and salvage work. Some
        extended rotations allow for increased risk of damage by forest pests, but managers are well aware of the tradeoffs, with ecological reasons
        justifying longer rotations.

                                                                                   Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Participation in, and support of, fire and pest prevention and control      MF,          10
2.4.3
        programs.                                                                   PP

Notes   Minnesota DNR continues to provide leadership in fire control; fire programs are coordinated with local (rural) fire departments.
        The audit team observed fire-fighting equipment in all forest areas visited during the audit. This equipment is modern, well-maintained, and rugged.


                                                                                   Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Program Participants that deploy improved planting stock,                   MF,          10
2.5
        including varietal seedlings, shall use sound scientific methods.           PP

Notes   See indicator.



                                                                                   Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Program for appropriate research, testing, evaluation and deployment        MF,          10
2.5.1
        of improved planting stock, including varietal seedlings.                   PP

Notes   All State Forest Nursery Program seedlings are produced under procedures that ensure the identity and source of the seed, seedlings, and
        transplants. This identity is maintained throughout all phases of production and product shipment. Seed collection zones are used to track
        geographic sources of seed; separate planting beds are employed in the nursery.
        Foresters confirmed that seed is collected locally, generally from the state forests themselves, grown at state nursery, and seedlings are returned to
        plant in the same general areas as the sourced seed.



                                                                                                                                                                 42
Objective 3. Protection and Maintenance of Water Resources
To protect water quality in rivers, streams, lakes, and other water bodies.
                                                                                 Audit   C        EXR   Maj   Min   OFI   Likely   Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                 -or                                      Gap *    Conf. *
            Program Participants shall meet or exceed all applicable federal,    MF,         10
 3.1
            provincial, state and local water quality laws, and meet or exceed   PP,
            best management practices developed under Canadian or U.S.           JH
            Environmental Protection Agency–approved water quality
            programs.
 Notes      See indicators.



                                                                                 Audit   C        EXR   Maj   Min   OFI   Likely   Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                 -or                                      Gap *    Conf. *
            Program to implement state or provincial best management practices   MF,         10                      10
 3.1.1
            during all phases of management activities.                          PP,
                                                                                 JH




                                                                                                                                             43
Notes   There is an opportunity to improve the emphasis placed on avoiding locating landings near or in wetlands.
        The 2009 Minor Non-conformance is closed. No similar violations of the wetlands provisions of the MFRC Site-Level Forest Management
        Guidelines were observed.
        The corrective actions are complete and the preventive actions are well underway. One concern involves the provisions for avoiding placing
        landings in or near wetlands when avoidable (see item 3 from the Preventive Action Plan below). The most recent statewide BMP monitoring
        report found that only 76% of the landings on state lands were compliant; 24% were all or partially in a wetlands or filter strips when an alternative
        existed. There may be justification, and it is not known whether these exceptions were justified in writing as allowed for: “DNR application of
        MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines: These guidelines are not voluntary on DNR administered lands. As a general rule, the DNR
        shall meet or exceed these guideline standards. However, under the guideline standards, deviation from the guidelines is allowed on a site basis,
        where written documentation of the need to meet other goals or strategies that conflict with application of these guidelines is provided.” Source:
        Interdisciplinary Forest Management Coordination Framework, December 2007
        Most, but not all, of the preventive actions from the 2009 Minor Non-conformance have been fully implemented. These preventive actions are
        still being rolled out; as such they should be considered again during the 2011 Surveillance audit.
                  “Preventive Action Plan for the 2009 Minor CAR Involving Slash in Wetlands:
                  Minnesota DNR plans to look into and/or take the following measures to avoid similar future situations:
                      1) Minnesota DNR will continue to pursue avenues to communicate, share, and discuss all the audit findings, including this issue.
                      2) Minnesota DNR plans to look into incorporating the audit findings and potential causes into refresher training for internal
                           Division of Forestry, other Department Staff, and external DNR audiences, as appropriate.
                              •    Training will discuss/highlight when placing a landing in or near a wetland is appropriate and when it is not.
                              •   Training will increase awareness and recognition of wetlands and explain the need for more thought given to road,
                                  landing, and skid trail location and layout in relation to wetlands during timber sale and biomass operations.
                                  (Many small wetlands (<0.2 acres) are not mapped and or recognized by loggers or foresters).
                     3) In the future, the presence of wetlands should be explicitly discussed during pre-sale meetings and where necessary, practical and
                        appropriate, marked on the sale maps/harvest plan, and visibly on-site.
                     4) Minnesota DNR plans to continue its Timber Sale Permit Inspection efforts, assistance/participation in MRFC’s FMGs
                        monitoring efforts, DNR’s Internal Audits and IAT process, and continue its commitment to Forest Certification.
                     5) Minnesota DNR plans to continue to encourage appropriate Department staff from outside the Division of Forestry to take the
                        FMGs training. This includes members of FCIT and the Department’s IAT.”
        Managing Equipment, Fuel and Lubricants on Page 70 of the General Guidelines in the Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines provides
        information regarding spills.

                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Contract provisions that specify conformance to best management             MF,         10
3.1.2
        practices.                                                                  PP



                                                                                                                                                                 44
Notes   All sale contracts include a clause specifying that MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines are to be followed.



                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Plans that address wet-weather events (e.g. forest inventory systems,      MF,          10
3.1.3
        wet-weather tracts, definitions of acceptable operating conditions).       PP

Notes   Foresters assess all harvest sites during planning (using soils maps, ECS, topographic maps, or site observations) for sensitivity of site to adverse
        impacts from harvesting equipment. For sensitive sites contract provisions are added specifying frozen ground only, harvesting only when ground
        conditions are suitable, and/or particular date ranges (January 1 to March 31, for example).
        Summer-logging tracts (i.e. tracts not requiring frozen ground) are designed and offered. When conditions are suitable and with written
        justification and approval documented in the files, harvest areas originally intended for harvest with frozen ground are occasionally released for
        harvest in the summer. This is a laudable practice, given the shortage of “summer logging” opportunities in some areas. The team carefully
        reviewed post-harvest ground conditions in at least one large (130-acre) completed harvest area and found excellent post-harvest conditions with
        respect to yarding impacts.

                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Monitoring of overall best management practices implementation.            MF,          10
3.1.4
                                                                                   PP,
                                                                                   JH




                                                                                                                                                                45
Notes    The Department has an extensive “first party” BMP monitoring program for its own operations by sale administrators responsible for overseeing
        harvests. They document discussions in sale administration notes. A review of the “Post Harvest Checklist” forms for a sample of completed
        harvest sites visited showed that the forms are used and appear to contain accurate and useful information.
        Regional managers and central administration also check a sub-sample of sites to confirm that the local audits are accurate and providing good
        information. Confirmation that this process continues was found in the report “FY2010 Timber Sale Inspections by RAN and Permit Number”.
        Local Area managers’ efforts are supplemented by the MFRC BMP monitoring program (independent of Minnesota DNR) designed to cover all
        ownerships. The all-ownership BMP monitoring protocol is detailed, comprehensive, and one of the best in the nation. Some highlights:
            •    24 of 88 monitored sites were on the state forests (770 situations; 83% fully met/ 11% minor departures / 6% major departures)
            •    Filter strips being followed on 97%; only 2 of 561 situations had erosion reaching a water body
            •    94% of the locations and 53% of the sites had no rutting; most rutting is on the wetland crossings (in the wetlands portions)
            •    Improvement needed: RMZs along lakes and streams; amount of infrastructure; water diversion and erosion control practices; leave tree
                 retention (only 60% met statewide; on state forests 73% met fully {6 of 24}); landing location*.
            •    State lands: 76% of the landings on state lands were compliant; 24% were all or partially in a wetland or filter strip when an alternative
                 exists
        “Other guidelines have demonstrated a low, or in a few cases, decreasing level of implementation on all ownerships including: leave-tree
        guidelines, RMZ guidelines for width and basal area, CWD retention within RMZs, percent infrastructure, location of landings in wetland and/or
        filter strips, use of water diversion/erosion control practices, and intensive rutting (>25%) in wetlands and on crossings… Given the critical role
        that the above guidelines play in mitigating impacts to water quality, wildlife, and soil productivity, there is an immediate need to improve
        implementation to avoid negative impacts on our forest resource.” Source: Timber harvesting and Forest Management Guidelines on Public and
        Private Forest land in Minnesota, Monitoring for Implementation 2009, By Richard Dahlman & Dick Rossman, MN DNR Division of Forestry
        Efforts to modify the first party monitoring methods to more closely align with the more formal SLG monitoring conducted by the Division of
        Forestry for all ownerships are incomplete, but have progressed considerably since the 2009 OFI was issued. Progress will be reviewed during
        the 2011 SFI Surveillance Audit.

                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *       Conf. *
        Program Participants shall have or develop, implement and                  MF,          10
3.2
        document riparian protection measures based on soil type,                  PP,
        terrain, vegetation, ecological function, harvesting system and            JH
        other applicable factors.
Notes   See indicators.

                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *       Conf. *




                                                                                                                                                                46
        Program addressing management and protection of rivers, streams,           MF,         10
3.2.1
        lakes, and other water bodies and riparian zones.                          PP,
                                                                                   JH
Notes   Minnesota DNR has a comprehensive program for the protection of wetlands and watercourses. Foresters plan all harvests and treatments; other
        specialists review these. Such protections are the first priority during planning and implementation. All foresters are trained to follow Minnesota’s
        Site Level Guidelines, although training updates are infrequent (see Indicator 16.1.3). Specialists are available for consultation as needed; all
        activities are subject to interdisciplinary review. MFRC formed a scientific panel to investigate the most current science that will direct the
        revisions of the current BMP’s for stream, lake and wetland protection.

                                                                                  Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
        Mapping of rivers, streams, lakes, and other water bodies as specified     MF,         10
3.2.2
        in state or provincial best management practices and, where                PP,
        appropriate, identification on the ground.                                 JH
Notes   Harvest maps include rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, lowland brush types, and other water bodies when near proposed harvest units. These areas
        are excluded from the harvest area on maps and on the ground using blue paint lines.

                                                                                  Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
        Implementation of plans to manage or protect rivers, streams, lakes,       MF,         10
3.2.3
        and other water bodies.                                                    PP,
                                                                                   JH
Notes   Field observations confirm that plans to manage or protect rivers, streams, lakes, and other water bodies are implemented.


                                                                                  Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
        Identification and protection of non-forested wetlands, including bogs,    MF,         10
3.2.4
        fens and marshes, and vernal pools of ecological significance.             JH

Notes   Field observations confirm that non-forested wetlands and small pocket forested wetlands are excluded from the harvest area on maps and on the
        ground using blue paint lines. Tops were kept out of these areas.

                                                                                  Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *




                                                                                                                                                                47
            Where regulations or best management practices do not currently exist        MF          10
 3.2.5
            to protect riparian areas, use of experts to identify appropriate
            protection measures.
 Notes      N.A.




Objective 4. Conservation of Biological Diversity including Forests with Exceptional Conservation Value.
To manage the quality and distribution of wildlife habitats and contribute to the conservation of biological diversity by developing and implementing stand- and
landscape-level measures that promote a diversity of types of habitat and successional stages, and conservation of forest plants and animals, including aquatic species.
                                                                                       Audit C            EXR       Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                       -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
            Program Participants shall have programs to promote biological               JH          10
 4.1
            diversity at stand- and landscape-levels.

 Notes      MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines provide a method to identify and mitigate short-term impacts.
            SNA program, which is not within the scope, is contributing to biodiversity conservation. Previously identified SNAs on the land base considered
            for certification were removed from the scope of the certificate. Additions to the SNA reserve system from the lands in scope are based on a
            rigorous review process, leading ultimately to a “Registry Agreement” to protect the lands.
            From communications with SNA staff: “The Program's long-range goal is to protect at least: five locations of plant communities known to occur in
            each landscape region and/or three locations per region of each rare species, plant or animal and geological features.
            It is estimated that 500 natural areas are needed throughout the state to adequately protect significant features. Because over 40 percent of these rare
            features occur in prairies, 200 natural areas would be in the prairie area of the state. Of the remainder, approximately 135 are estimated to be
            needed in the deciduous and 165 in coniferous forest landscape communities in the next 100 years.”
            The program, created by the 1969 Minnesota Legislature, currently administers over 140 natural areas encompassing: 47 SNA’s in conifer habitat,
            50 in deciduous habitats and 31 in the prairie area.

                                                                                       Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                       -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
            Program to promote the conservation of native biological diversity,          JH          10
 4.1.1
            including species, wildlife habitats and ecological community types.




                                                                                                                                                                           48
Notes   MN DNR actively manages game and non-game wildlife as evidenced by the links on the Division of Wildlife and Fisheries web page.
        The Wildlife and Fisheries Sections are deeply engaged in habitat improvement on state lands, and their efforts were bolstered in 2008 by state
        constitutional amendment that authorizes collection of a sales tax which helps support habitat projects.
        Auditors confirmed use of the Wildlife Action Plan (WAP), also known as “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (SGCN), for planning. There
        are references to the WAP within recent SFRMPs.
        “Chapter 7 provides information on the occurrence, legal status and the population trends of wildlife species in these four subsections. Species
        presence information is summarized from data collected by the Minnesota Gap Analysis Project (MN-GAP), a project organized to provide a state
        assessment on the conservation status of native vertebrate species and natural land cover types… In this assessment, select information is
        presented on SGCN species presence in the four subsections covered by this forest resource management plan.” Source: North Four SFRMP
        Most of the LTAs in the Northeast Region have their own wildlife management plans.
        Special habitat management guidelines have been prepared for several ETS species.
        Significant efforts have been made to provide Area Staff with clear direction on DNR’s interim HCVF approach.
        A new funding source (Lessard-Sams aka Natural Heritage fund) is beginning to become available for habitat projects on a competitive basis.

                                                                                  Audit    C         EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
        Program to protect threatened and endangered species.                       JH                 10
4.1.2

        Minnesota DNR exceeds the SFI requirements for protection of threatened and endangered species.
Notes
        The Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program administers Minnesota's endangered species laws, rules, and permits pertaining to species
        designated by rule as endangered or threatened. Confirmed by interviews and review of documents provided that the Minnesota DNR Division of
        Forestry, Division of Fish and Wildlife, and Division of Ecological Resources all collaborate to protect threatened and endangered species.
        Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) has been completed for most counties in the state. Presence and locations of rare resources are
        available in a data layer that is accessible by field personnel when planning resource management actions.
        RTE species and species of special concern are considered in the SFRMPs, based in part on analysis within the Minnesota WAP.
        Wildlife biologists have opportunities to be involved in all management decisions. Other specialists (ecologists, species focused biologists) are
        readily available. Foresters consult with both wildlife biologists and other specialists as needed, such as when a threatened or endangered species is
        reported (through the heritage database) or found in the field. Eco-Waters Division personnel can choose to participate in a joint-site visit to
        confirm and possibly to consult on protection measures; if no such joint site visit is done then foresters assume the species is present and manage
        accordingly.

                                                                                  Audit    C         EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *



                                                                                                                                                                 49
        Program to locate and protect known sites associated with viable           JH         10
4.1.3
        occurrences of critically imperiled and imperiled species and
        communities also known as Forests with Exceptional Conservation
        Value. Plans for protection may be developed independently or
        collaboratively, and may include Program Participant management,
        cooperation with other stakeholders, or use of easements, conservation
        land sales, exchanges, or other conservation strategies.
Notes   Closed 2009 Minor Non-conformance: “Imperiled (G2) Native Plant Communities, while generally designated for special management, are not
        automatically designated for such management. Plans for appropriate protection were not available for all such sites.”
        The team assessed the corrective and preventive actions listed in the Minnesota DNR’s corrective action plan, and found that all the corrective
        actions have been completed. Reported G1 and G2 occurrences have been assessed, some found to no longer exist, and remaining instances
        evaluated for viability. The viable instances are all covered by protection plans or procedures, including HCVF process as part of FSC compliance.
        The team concluded that these “rarest of the rare” are accorded special protection.

        Preventive Actions from the 2009 Minor Non-conformance are listed below to ensure that future auditors can easily consider these ongoing
        commitments:
        “Moving forward, Minnesota DNR is looking to make improvements in its HCVF approach. It is likely that Minnesota DNR will continue to
        include G1 and G2 communities within its overall HCVF efforts. In order to assure that G1 and G2 NPCs are protected in the future, Minnesota
        DNR will take the following actions.
                1) Ecological Resources staff will update the GIS cover of G1 and G2 NPCs on Division of Forestry and Section of Wildlife land each
                    year and post the updated information on the DNR ftp site. Ecological Resources staff will inform Regional Managers when the
                    information is updated. This updated information will include newly recorded polygons from MCBS plant ecologists and will have
                    polygons determined to be non-viable and potential G1 and G2 polygons that are determined not to be G1or G2 removed.
                2) DNR will explore options for tagging sites or stands that intersect known and potential G1 or G2 NPC polygons in an appropriate
                    existing database (e.g., SRM, FIM).
                3) MCBS plant ecologists will provide condition ranks for all newly reported G1 and G2 NPCs.
                4) Ecological Resources staff will complete Condition Rank Guidelines covering all G1 and G2 NPCs.
                5) The DNR will review options and opportunities to use ECS mapping data collected by Forestry and Wildlife staff to help identify
                    additional examples of G1-G2 NPCs.”

                                                                                  Audit   C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                  Gap *      Conf. *
        Development and implementation of criteria, as guided by regionally        JH         10                              10 (2)
4.1.4
        appropriate best scientific information, to retain stand-level wildlife
        habitat elements such as snags, stumps, mast trees, down woody
        debris, den trees and nest trees.




                                                                                                                                                             50
Notes   There is an opportunity to improve by incorporating legacy trees in the leave tree or reserve guidelines and/or practices.
        There is an opportunity to improve by retaining more ecologically effective structural and compositional retention in regeneration harvest blocks,
        for example, more mature or over-mature trees.
        Closed 2009 Minor Non-conformance: “Implementation of the Minnesota Site Level Guidelines for retention of stand-level wildlife habitat
        elements, notably den trees and large/live and declining trees, is not adequate, and does not fully meet the spirit, intent, or detailed guidance within
        the published guidelines.”
        The corrective and preventive actions were substantially completed, although some items are ongoing. Field observations on sites visited showed
        generally very good conformance with MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines (FMGs) regarding stand level wildlife habitat elements.
        Several “Preventive Action Plan” elements are listed below (edited to combine issues) to ensure follow-up in future audits:
            •    The 2004-2006 MFRC Site Level Guidelines Monitoring Report recommended that the FMGs be reviewed. A recommendation will be
                 made to the FMG review committee to consolidate leave tree guidance, or in some way make it easier to assimilate and implement leave
                 tree guidelines.
            •    The MFRC FMG monitoring report covering timber harvesting and other management activities from 2007- 2009, coupled with internal
                 Timber Sale Inspections and annual internal audits, will aid in assessing more recent compliance. MN DNR, partnering with Minnesota
                 Logger Education Program (MLEP), Sustainable Forestry Education Cooperative (SFEC), and others, will work to communicate/include
                 identified issues through existing or new training, workshops, and meeting opportunities.
            •    Finalize the draft factsheet on leave trees. Distribute and discuss at Area meetings (Forestry and Wildlife).
            •    Add training materials to appropriate MN DNR websites.
            •    Leave tree objectives must be part of treatment design (e.g. timber sale regulations) and review procedures and reflect DFC’s and
                 management objectives identified in prescriptions. Intent of leave trees needs to be expressly communicated to those involved in treatment
                 design, and implementation (e.g. timber sale marking and contracts). Practitioners need a reminder/refresher regarding how to choose
                 leave trees to accomplish the stated objectives. The Forest Certification Implementation Team (FCIT) will recommend to the Director’s of
                 the Division of Forestry and Division of Wildlife to consider sending a memo to all offices outlining the importance and intent of leave
                 trees, making specific reference to the FMGs. Included in this memo will be a reminder that the Area Timber Program Leader is
                 responsible for timber sale review and approval, and is expected to match contract regulations with site objectives.
            •    Objectives relating to FMG leave tree exemptions must be noted on the Silviculture Prescription Worksheet and be reflected in any timber
                 sale or other treatment regulations. Prescription Worksheets must be readily available to those implementing/supervising treatments (such
                 as the timber marker and/or Timber Sale Administrator).
            •    Correspondence between Disciplines relating to site objectives and treatment design may be printed (e.g. e-mails) and placed in
                 appropriate project folders (i.e. timber sale folder) and will constitute adequate documentation.




                                                                                                                                                                   51
                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj     Min      OFI      Likely    Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                              Gap *     Conf. *
        Program for assessment, conducted either individually or                     JH         10
4.1.5
        collaboratively, of forest cover types, age or size classes, and habitats
        at the individual ownership level and, where credible data are
        available, across the landscape, and take into account findings in
        planning and management activities.
Notes   The Minnesota DNR Wildlife Action Plan is now used to help guide forest management planning. Subsection plans are designed to contribute to
        goals first identified in the Minnesota Forest Resources Council (MFRC) Landscape Program.
        SFRMP and Minnesota Forest Resources Council Regional Landscape Planning: The recommended desired outcomes, goals, and strategies
        developed for the North Central Landscape Region by the North Central Regional Landscape Committee under the direction of the Minnesota
        Forest Resources Council (MFRC) Landscape Program were considered in developing this SFRMP. Members of the CP-PMOP Planning Team
        participated as members of the North Central Regional Landscape Committee. By considering the recommendations from the North Central
        Landscape Region Plan, the decisions for management of DNR-administered lands incorporate recommendations from a broader landscape
        perspective across all ownerships and assist in cooperation across ownerships in this larger landscape area.
        Source: Intro. to Chippewa Plains SFRMP http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/subsection/cp_pmop/final/sfrmp_cppmop_introduction.pdf
        The Aspen Parklands preliminary assessment (pages xiii to xiv) includes an objective to coordinate with MFRC plans, plans for Nature
        Conservancy lands in adjoining Canadian provinces, and the plan for the Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge.

                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj     Min      OFI      Likely    Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                              Gap *     Conf. *
        Support of and participation in plans or programs for the conservation       JH         10
4.1.6
        of old-growth forests in the region of ownership.




                                                                                                                                                         52
Notes   Confirmed the following items that were also covered in the 2009 report:
           • “The Department completed a second review (through data review and field evaluations) to identify primary old-growth stands that may
               have been overlooked in Minnesota DNR initial review. To date, Minnesota DNR has completed field evaluations of all potential primary
               old-growth stands and those evaluations have been forwarded to FCIT and the Regional Old Growth Committees for discussion and
               decision. To date, Minnesota DNR has not identified any new primary old-growth sites as a result of this secondary review. Until all
               stand evaluations have been reviewed and final determinations made for all sites, potential primary old-growth stands have been withheld
               from management. Once final determinations are made, non-primary old-growth sites will be released for normal management.
           • Old Forest Management Complexes (OFMCs) are identified; younger-stands within these complexes received special attention during
               planning to consider opportunities to support the function of the old forest stands. Such considerations include analysis at several spatial
               scales (stand-level, groups of stands, and “Placement of ERF on the Landscape”).

        The1994 Old-Growth Forest Guidelines specified that Special Management Zones (SMZs) be managed as all-aged Extended Rotation or as limited
        clear cuts where, at any given time, no more than 25% of the SMZ has regeneration less than 1/3 potential height. The minimum SMZ width is 330
        feet, but may be expanded to existing stand boundaries, to connect with the SMZ of nearby old-growth stands, to achieve another management
        objective, or in response tonew information (i.e. County Biological Survey data). These guidelines for old growth protection ensure that old growth
        stands are “protected and buffered as necessary with conservation zones”. Field review indicated that managers are applying this guideline—the
        additional plans for old forest mgmt complexes would be beneficial, but not required to meet this indicator.

        Progress has been slow on the issues of old growth plans and Ecologically Important Lowland Conifers (EILC). These two issues, mentioned in
        the Executive Summary 2009 of the Minnesota DNR Internal Audit Report, should be reviewed again in the 2011 Surveillance Audit:
            •    There is a need for improved communication between the Forest Management Areas and Regional Old-Growth Committees, and
            •    Field personnel need to improve their application and knowledge of the intent of DNR’s EILC policy.

                                                                                     Audit   C        EXR   Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                Gap *      Conf. *
        Participation in programs and demonstration of activities as                  JH         10
4.1.7
        appropriate to limit the introduction, impact and spread of invasive
        exotic plants and animals that directly threaten or are likely to threaten
        native plant and animal communities.




                                                                                                                                                              53
        Provisions for special methods involving preventive measures regarding invasive plants can be inserted in timber sales contracts, e.g. removal of
Notes
        clumps of soil and plant materials from logging equipment.
        Wildlife division is more aggressive than forestry regarding application of preventive measures. Audits conducted in 2010 revealed an increase
        concern and awareness of invasive exotic plants and animals.
        Confirmed the following items that were also covered in the 2009 report:
            • Invasive Species Program Activities included Education, Outreach, Invasive Plant Management, Administration, Collaboration
            • Sue Burks, Invasive Species Program Coordinator, with a current focus on uplands; an inventory of invasive plants along roads and in
                 gravel pits is underway
            • Minnesota DNR tried to implement the Commissioner’s Order for Exotics in 2007 but MFI (forest industry group) objected; now moving
                 forward slowly with a voluntary program; working with state’s logger education program; can require measures (machine cleaning) as
                 needed for selected sites

                                                                                   Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min    OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                   Gap *      Conf. *

        Program to incorporate the role of prescribed or natural fire where          JH          10
4.1.8
        appropriate.

Notes   Staff throughout the department are trained and experienced in the use of prescribed fire as well as in fire control.
        The audit team observed fire-fighting equipment in all forest areas visited during the audit. This equipment is modern, well-maintained, and rugged.
        However manpower and funding significantly limit the acres treated using prescribed fire.

                                                                                   Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min    OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                   Gap *      Conf. *
        Program Participants shall apply knowledge gained through                    JH          10
4.2
        research, science, technology and field experience to manage
        wildlife habitat and contribute to the conservation of biological
        diversity.
Notes   Division of wildlife have staff dedicated to research and have recently added a new staff member dedicated to ruffed grouse issues in the State.



                                                                                   Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min    OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                   Gap *      Conf. *




                                                                                                                                                               54
        Collection of information on Forests with Exceptional Conservation         JH    10
4.2.1
        Value and other biodiversity-related data through forest inventory
        processes, mapping or participation in external programs, such as
        NatureServe, state or provincial heritage programs, or other credible
        systems. Such participation may include providing non-proprietary
        scientific information, time and assistance by staff, or in-kind or direct
        financial support.
        MCBS continues to provide information on ETS species in most regions of the State, with field surveys ongoing or planned in the remaining
Notes
        regions.
        Field personnel report any new sites to the heritage database.

                                                                                 Audit    C        EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                 -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
        A methodology to incorporate research results and field applications       JH                                  10
4.2.2
        of biodiversity and ecosystem research into forest management
        decisions.
Notes   Minor Non-conformance 2010-01: The wildlife guidance document “Forestry-Wildlife Guidelines to Habitat Management” is not up-to-date.
        Although most wildlife biologists are no longer using it, and much of the material is out-dated or inconsistent with current scientific knowledge,
        “Forestry-Wildlife Guidelines to Habitat Management (1985)” is the first document listed in the DNR Policy And Guidance – Guidelines” section
        of the Interdisciplinary Forest Management Coordination Framework, December 2007.
        Some excerpts are provided: “Forestry-Wildlife Guidelines to Habitat Management (1985) (Not available on DNR intranet. Many of these
        guidelines are dated, and some may be no longer applicable. They are currently under review for applicability and possible revision.) … DNR
        application of Forestry-Wildlife Guidelines to Habitat Management: The Forestry-Wildlife Guidelines to Habitat Management state that Forestry
        and Wildlife staff “will follow these guidelines when planning and implementing forestry and wildlife management practices, recognizing that
        whenever possible management objectives should be met through forest management practices.” They also state that “both Area Forestry and Area
        Wildlife personnel will follow the guidelines as much as possible when preparing any development proposal or carrying out any activity that may
        influence habitat.”




                                                                                                                                                             55
Objective 5. Management of Visual Quality and Recreational Benefits.
To manage the visual impact of forest operations and provide recreational opportunities for the public.
                                                                                     Audit C            EXR           Maj    Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                       Gap *      Conf. *
            Program Participants shall manage the impact of harvesting on               MF,          10
 5.1
            visual quality.                                                             PP

 Notes      See indicators.

                                                                                       Audit     C        EXR         Maj    Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                       -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
            Program to address visual quality management.                               MF           10
 5.1.1

 Notes      Trained foresters are involved in all aspects of harvest planning and execution. The use of trained foresters (most have training in visual
            management) and the department’s sale review process (which considers visual issues) constitute a program.
            Each road is zoned for visual quality (1, 2, or 3) and there is a policy for visual quality management.

                                                                                       Audit     C        EXR         Maj    Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                       -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
            Incorporation of aesthetic considerations in harvesting, road, landing      MF,          10
 5.1.2
            design and management, and other management activities where                PP
            visual impacts are a concern.
 Notes      Field observations indicated that most sales have incorporated many measures that minimize visual impacts, such as good utilization, clear
            landings, low slash, slash pulled back from roads, and/or visual buffers along roads.

                                                                                       Audit     C        EXR         Maj    Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                       -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
            Program Participants shall manage the size, shape and placement             MF,          10
 5.2
            of clearcut harvests.                                                       PP

 Notes      Trained foresters are involved in all aspects of harvest planning and execution, and do manage clearcut size and placement.

                                                                                       Audit     C        EXR         Maj    Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                       -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
            Average size of clearcut harvest areas does not exceed 120 acres (50        MF,          10
 5.2.1
            hectares), except when necessary to meet regulatory requirements or         PP
            to respond to forest health emergencies or other natural catastrophes.

                                                                                                                                                                    56
Notes   Field observations confirm that clearcuts are far smaller than the indicator allows; numerous clearcuts were reviewed and none were larger than 50
        acres (if harvests with significant retention not considered).
        Field observations as to clearcut size were consistent with the information from the 2009 and previous SFI Annual Reporting Forms
            •    2009: Clearcutting [primarily clearcut w/ reserves] 34,565 acres; Average size of clearcut harvest areas: 42 acres
            •    2008: Clearcutting [primarily clearcut w/ reserves] 44,389 acres; Average size of clearcut harvest areas: 48 acres

                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Documentation through internal records of clearcut size and the              MF,          10                                  10
5.2.2
        process for calculating average size.                                        PP

Notes   There is an opportunity to improve the process for calculating clearcut size to ensure that the calculation is not overstating clearcut size.
        There are comprehensive records and a process is in place. Clearcut size is calculated from information recorded in DNR’s Silviculture and Roads
        Module (SRM). This system is robust and foresters attempt to provide accurate and reasonable precise information. However, some sales include
        multiple separate clearcuts of the same type within a single stand, and are reported as one block clearcut, not several smaller clearcuts.

                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Program Participants shall adopt a green-up requirement or                   MF,          10
5.3
        alternative methods that provide for visual quality.                         PP

Notes   See indicators.

                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
        Program implementing the green-up requirement or alternative                 MF,          10
5.3.1
        methods.                                                                     PP

Notes   Trained foresters are involved in all aspects of harvest planning and execution. The use of trained foresters (most have training in visual
        management) and the department review process (which considers visual issues) constitute a program.
        Minnesota DNR avoids placing clearcuts adjacent, except for health reasons, such as insect or storm salvage. Planning of each harvest includes
        field layout stage by foresters, who ensure that adjacent stands are regenerated adequately before clearcutting adjacent stands.

                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *



                                                                                                                                                                  57
        Harvest area tracking system to demonstrate conformance with the            MF,          10
5.3.2
        green-up requirement or alternative methods.                                PP

Notes   Foresters plan all harvests and record clearcut boundaries using GPS / GIS. Clearcut size is calculated from information recorded in SRM.

                                                                                   Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min       OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                      Gap *       Conf. *
        Trees in clearcut harvest areas are at least 3 years old or 5 feet (1.5     MF,          10
5.3.3
        meters) high at the desired level of stocking before adjacent areas are     PP
        clearcut, or as appropriate to address operational and economic
        considerations, alternative methods to reach the performance measure
        are utilized by the Program Participant.
Notes   Confirmed by field observations that this indicator is met. Most clearcuts are aspen, which reproduces rapidly through root suckers.

                                                                                   Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min       OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                      Gap *       Conf. *
        Program Participants shall support and promote recreational                  All                10
5.4
        opportunities for the public.

Notes   Minnesota DNR promotes recreational use of the forests and regularly modifies timber management to better accommodate such use. As such the
        SFI Standard is exceeded.
        See indicator below.

                                                                                   Audit     C        EXR       Maj      Min       OFI      Likely      Likely
        2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                      Gap *       Conf. *
        Provide recreational opportunities for the public, where consistent          All                10
5.4.1
        with forest management objectives.

Notes   Confirmed continuing emphasis on providing quality recreation experiences on these certified lands. Observed well signed and maintained trails of
        various types. Also observed parking areas and signboards.
        Completed state forest classification and route designation (which roads and trails are closed and which are open for which uses) on time.
        Minnesota State Forest Recreation Guide provides information on recreation opportunities in the state forests, including a list of all of the forests
        and the recreation available in each.




                                                                                                                                                                  58
Objective 6. Protection of Special Sites.
To manage lands that are ecologically, geologically or culturally important in a manner that takes into account their unique qualities.
                                                                                      Audit C             EXR      Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                      -or                                                      Gap *      Conf. *
            Program Participants shall identify special sites and manage them           JH,         10
 6.1
            in a manner appropriate for their unique features.                          RH

 Notes      See indicators.



                                                                                       Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                       -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
            Use of information such as existing natural heritage data, expert           JH,         10
 6.1.1
            advice or stakeholder consultation in identifying or selecting special      RH
            sites for protection.
 Notes      The Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) conducts surveys, county-by-county, to search for rare plants, animals, and communities.
            Confirmed that special sites are located on maps, listed in databases available to all staff involved in planning and implementation of harvests,
            vegetation treatments, projects, etc., and when there are close to harvests they are shown on the harvest plan maps provided to the buyers.
            Confirmed by review of sale documents and by field observations that specials sites marked off (buffered out) of nearby timber harvests.

                                                                                       Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min       OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                       -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
            Appropriate mapping, cataloging and management of identified                JH,         10
 6.1.2
            special sites.                                                              RH

 Notes      Survey of the biodiversity of Minnesota, started in 1987, has covered much of the state, with a few counties being surveyed now, and two counties
            in the north recently started. Survey locates special sites and classifies them as Outstanding, High, Moderate, or Below in terms of biodiversity
            Significance Ranks. All Outstanding and many High sites within scope are flagged for special management. New on-line tools are being made
            available, with maps of designated sites, locations of rare features, native plant community maps, RELEVE vegetation plot locations, and
            ownerships; also links to sites and species, ultimately linking to management guides on web.




                                                                                                                                                                    59
Objective 7. Efficient Use of Forest Resources.
To promote the efficient use of forest resources.
                                                                                     Audit      C        EXR     Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
            Program Participants shall employ appropriate forest harvesting           MF,           10
 7.1
            technology and in-woods manufacturing processes and practices             PP
            to minimize waste and ensure efficient utilization of harvested
            trees, where consistent with other SFI Standard objectives.
 Notes      See indicator.



                                                                                     Audit      C        EXR     Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
            Program or monitoring system to ensure efficient utilization, which       MF,           10
 7.1.1
            may include provisions to ensure:                                         PP
                    a. management of harvest residue (e.g. slash, limbs,
                    tops) considers economic, social and environmental
                    factors (e.g. organic and nutrient value to future
                    forests) and other utilization needs;
                    b. training or incentives to encourage loggers to
                    enhance utilization; c. cooperation with mill managers for
                    better utilization of species and low-grade material;
                    d. exploration of markets for underutilized species and
                    low-grade wood and alternative markets (e.g. bioenergy
                    markets); or e. periodic inspections and reports noting
                    utilization and product separation.
 Notes      Confirmed items a, b, c, d, and e above. Foresters monitor utilization, with increased emphasis when sawtimber or higher-value products are
            involved. Confirmed use of lock-boxes and trip tickets. Field observations confirmed good utilization on most sites. All sales are stumpage sales.
            The Division of Forestry operates a Utilization and Marketing Program to work with forest industry to:
                 •   "Help "stretch" the timber resource.
                 •   Help wood manufacturers be more efficient users of wood residue and more efficient product manufacturers by providing them with
                     information on the latest technology.
                 •   Aid in decision making that results in sustainable economic development.
                 •   Harness market forces to provide enhanced opportunities for sustainable forest management. "




                                                                                                                                                                 60
This landowner does not procure fiber for mills it owns or controls.
N.A. Objective 8. Landowner Outreach.
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by forest landowners through fiber sourcing programs.

N.A. Objective 9. Use of Qualified Resource and Qualified Logging Professionals.
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by encouraging forest landowners to utilize the services of forest management and harvesting professionals.

N.A. Objective 10. Adherence to Best Management Practices.
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry through the use of best management practices to protect water quality.

N.A. Objective 11. Promote Conservation of Biological Diversity, Biodiversity Hotspots and High-Biodiversity Wilderness Areas.
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by conserving biological diversity, biodiversity hotspots and high-biodiversity wilderness areas.

N.A. Objective 12. Avoidance of Controversial Sources including Illegal Logging.
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by avoidance of illegal logging.

N.A. Objective 13. Avoidance of Controversial Sources including Fiber Sourced from Areas without Effective Social Laws.
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by avoiding controversial sources.

Objective 14. Legal and Regulatory Compliance.
Compliance with applicable federal, provincial, state and local laws and regulations.
                                                                                        Audit   C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely   Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                        -or                                                    Gap *    Conf. *
            Program Participants shall take appropriate steps to comply with             MF         10
 14.1
            applicable federal, provincial, state and local forestry and related
            social and environmental laws and regulations.
 Notes      See indicators.


                                                                                        Audit   C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely   Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                        -or                                                    Gap *    Conf. *
            Access to relevant laws and regulations in appropriate locations.           MF,         10
 14.1.1
                                                                                        PP
            Key statutes relating to forest management are summarized in Section II of the Interdisciplinary Forest Management Coordination Framework and
 Notes
            are available on the DNR intranet at http://intranet.dnr.state.mn.us/forest_mgmt_direction/index.html.
            Policy and guidance documents are outlined in Section III of the Interdisciplinary Forest Management Coordination Framework

                                                                                        Audit   C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely   Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                        -or                                                    Gap *    Conf. *

                                                                                                                                                                  61
         System to achieve compliance with applicable federal, provincial,          MF          10
14.1.2
         state or local laws and regulations.

Notes    A process exists for setting up all timber harvests and significant projects, reviewing them internally, and documenting their approval. This process
         includes the involvement of the most experienced personnel in projects, helping to ensure compliance.
         For challenging issues the department has an attorney.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                    Gap *       Conf. *
         Demonstration of commitment to legal compliance through available           JL         10
14.1.3
         regulatory action information.

Notes    During the opening meeting none of the 40 people present reported knowing about any regulatory issues in the last year.
         No issues were uncovered through review via internet (Google) search or by contacting the regulatory agencies.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                    Gap *       Conf. *
         Program Participants shall take appropriate steps to comply with            JL         10
14.2
         all applicable social laws at the federal, provincial, state and local
         levels in the country in which the Program Participant operates.
Notes    See indicators. There are concerns about the effectiveness of the anti-harassment measures. The 2011 Surveillance Audit should seek additional
         information in this area.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                    Gap *       Conf. *
         Written policy demonstrating commitment to comply with social laws,        JL,         10
14.2.1
         such as those covering civil rights, equal employment opportunities,       MF
         anti-discrimination and anti-harassment measures, workers’
         compensation, indigenous peoples’ rights, workers’ and communities’
         right to know, prevailing wages, workers’ right to organize, and
         occupational health and safety.
Notes    These policies are in place. There are concerns about the effectiveness of the anti-harassment measures.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                    Gap *       Conf. *



                                                                                                                                                                 62
         Forestry enterprises will respect the rights of workers and labor           MF        10
14.2.2
         representatives in a manner that encompasses the intent of the
         International Labor Organization (ILO) core conventions.
Notes    There have not been any ILO-related complaints. If any occur Minnesota DNR must notify NSF, and NSF must pass these along to SFI Inc.
         MN DNR employees are represented by unions under collective bargaining agreements. The MN Public Employment Labor Relations Act
         (PELRA) establishes the rules for collective bargaining between Minnesota public employers and representatives of public employees. PELRA
         grants public employees the right to unionize and to bargain collectively, sets the criteria for establishment of bargaining units, provides procedures
         for election of exclusive representatives, and contains procedures for resolving impasses in bargaining.




                                                                                                                                                                   63
Objective 15. Forestry Research, Science, and Technology.
To support forestry research, science, and technology, upon which sustainable forest management decisions are based.
                                                                                     Audit C          EXR      Maj     Min   OFI    Likely    Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                            Gap *     Conf. *
            Program Participants shall individually and/or through                    MF         10
 15.1
            cooperative efforts involving SFI Implementation Committees,
            associations or other partners provide in-kind support or funding
            for forest research to improve forest health, productivity, and
            sustainable management of forest resources, and the
            environmental benefits and performance of forest products.
 Notes      Confirmed attendance by Rebecca Barnard, Minnesota DNR Forest Certification Coordinator, in the Minnesota SFI Implementation Committee’s
            meetings. Financial support for U.S. SFI Implementation Committees (USD) = $41,555.50 (Total).

                                                                                     Audit   C        EXR      Maj     Min   OFI    Likely    Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                            Gap *     Conf. *
            Financial or in-kind support of research to address questions of          MF         10
 15.1.1
            relevance in the region of operations. The research shall include some
            of the following issues:
                      a. forest health, productivity, and ecosystem functions;
                      b. chemical efficiency, use rate and integrated pest
                      management;
                      c. water quality and/or effectiveness of best management
                      practices including effectiveness of water quality and
                      best management practices for protecting the quality,
                      diversity and distributions of fish and wildlife habitats;
                      d. wildlife management at stand- and landscape-levels;
                      e. conservation of biological diversity;
                      f. ecological impacts of bioenergy feedstock removals
                      on productivity, wildlife habitat, water quality and
                      other ecosystem functions;
                      g. climate change research for both adaptation and
                      mitigation; h. social issues;
                      i. forest operations efficiencies and economics;
                      j. energy efficiency; k. life cycle assessment;
                      l. avoidance of illegal logging; and
                      m. avoidance of controversial sources.
 Notes      2009 SFI Progress Report Form: $40,000
            Support for U.S. SFI Implementation Committees (USD) = $41,555.50 (Total)


                                                                                                                                                        64
                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj   Min      OFI     Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                           Gap *      Conf. *
         Research on genetically engineered trees via forest tree biotechnology    MF N.A.
15.1.2
         shall adhere to all applicable federal, state, and provincial regulations
         and international protocols.
         NA; asked Minnesota DNR: Rick Klevorn, Silviculture program Coordinator and Tree Improvement Program Leader responded: “No we don’t do
Notes
         any research on GMOs nor are we planting GMOs nor do we ever intend to.”

                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj   Min      OFI     Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                           Gap *      Conf. *
         Program Participants shall individually and/or through                      MF         10
15.2
         cooperative efforts involving SFI Implementation Committees,
         associations or other partners develop or use state, provincial or
         regional analyses in support of their sustainable forestry
         programs.
Notes    Support for / involvement in Minnesota’s SFI Implementation Committee = $41,555.50 (2009 SFI Progress Report Form)


                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj   Min      OFI     Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                           Gap *      Conf. *
         Participation, individually and/or through cooperative efforts              MF         10
15.2.1
         involving SFI Implementation Committees and/or associations at the
         national, state, provincial or regional level, in the development or use
         of some of the following:
                   a. regeneration assessments;
                   b. growth and drain assessments;
                   c. best management practices implementation and
                   conformance;
                   d. biodiversity conservation information for family forest
                   owners; and
                   e. social, cultural or economic benefit assessments.
Notes    Item a: FIA data is used in the development of growth curves that drive the stand selection model.
         Item b: Growth and drain is closely tracked.
         Item c: MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines are comprehensively monitored; results are used to consider program changes to drive
         improvement.
         Item e: Economic assessments are conducted, with an emphasis on formal economic assessment and development.


                                                                                                                                                       65
                                                                                      Audit   C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                      -or                                                  Gap *      Conf. *
            Program Participants shall individually and/or through                     MF         10
 15.3
            cooperative efforts involving SFI Implementation Committees,
            associations or other partners broaden the awareness of climate
            change impacts on forests, wildlife and biological diversity.
 Notes      Support for / involvement in Minnesota’s SFI Implementation Committee = $41,555.50 (2009 SFI Progress Report Form)

                                                                                      Audit   C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                      -or                                                  Gap *      Conf. *
            Where available, monitor information generated from regional climate       MF         10
 15.3.1
            models on long-term forest health, productivity and economic
            viability.
 Notes      Specialists within the Minnesota DNR have modeled likely impacts in Minnesota.

                                                                                      Audit   C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                      -or                                                  Gap *      Conf. *
            Program Participants are knowledgeable about climate change impacts        MF         10
 15.3.2
            on wildlife, wildlife habitats and conservation of biological diversity
            through international, national, regional or local programs.
 Notes      Foresters and biologists interviewed know the changes predicted for Minnesota by the climate models (hotter, drier, more variable patterns, more
            extreme dry periods and wet periods).

Objective 16. Training and Education.
To improve the implementation of sustainable forestry practices through appropriate training and education programs.
                                                                                     Audit C           EXR      Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                   Gap *      Conf. *
            Program Participants shall require appropriate training of                 MF         10
 16.1
            personnel and contractors so that they are competent to fulfill
            their responsibilities under the SFI 2010-2014 Standard.
 Notes      See indicators.




                                                                                                                                                                66
                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR   Maj   Min    OFI      Likely    Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                            Gap *     Conf. *
         Written statement of commitment to the SFI 2010-2014 Standard                MF          10
16.1.1
         communicated throughout the organization, particularly to facility and
         woodland managers, fiber sourcing staff and field foresters.
Notes    There is a notable level of awareness of certification. Commitment comes from Mark Holsten, Minnesota DNR Commissioner who is quite
         involved. Following is also a link to Minnesota DNR’s Forest Certification website (external/public) showing its commitment to Forest
         Certification.
         http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/certification/index.html

                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR   Maj   Min    OFI      Likely    Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                            Gap *     Conf. *
         Assignment and understanding of roles and responsibilities for               MF          10
16.1.2
         achieving SFI 2010-2014 Standard objectives.

Notes    Rebecca Barnard, Forest Certification Coordinator.
         Forest Certification Implementation Team (FCIT).
         Internal Audit Team (IAT) has a written charter that specifies roles and responsibilities.

                                                                                    Audit     C        EXR   Maj   Min    OFI      Likely    Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                            Gap *     Conf. *
         Staff education and training sufficient to their roles and                   All         10                        10
16.1.3
         responsibilities.




                                                                                                                                                       67
Notes    There is an opportunity to improve staff training on Minnesota Forest Resource Council’s Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines.
         Training is MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines is somewhat dated, and some Minnesota DNR employees (from outside the Forestry
         Division) have never been trained.
         In response to 2009 Minor Non-conformance involving wildlife habitat retention, Minnesota DNR has conducted many awareness and training
         activities. Developed multiple Fact Sheets for staff and for stakeholders; topics: HCVFs, RSAs, G1-G2, and Certification. These are available as
         documents, printed pieces, and on the internet.
         Training manuals for each subsection plan are available; as SFRMPs are rolled out training is implemented, often focused on DFCs.
         On other certification-related topics there are prepared webinars and presentations, with links on the revised Forestry Division Certification Web
         site which contains several revised web pages, again covering HCVFs, RSAs, G1-G2, and Certification.
         “Forestry should improve the training and support provided to new staff and those transitioning into new positions. Area Forestry Supervisor is in
         an interim position and also new to the position and the Area. Therefore, some deficiencies are understandable that would otherwise cause more
         concern. Employees should annually review their training records for accuracy and completeness. Training records are maintained but
         apparently not reviewed very often as personnel were hesitant or vague as to the accuracy and completion of the records.” Source: 2009
         Minnesota DNR Internal Audit Report, Executive Summary
         There are no “Entry-Level Foresters” (ELF) at the current time; when new foresters are hired they go through a structured, intensive, one-year
         training regimen. In the next 2 years or so the approach is to provide significant on-the-ground training/mentoring, mostly by working closely with
         experienced foresters.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
         Contractor education and training sufficient to their roles and            MF,         10
16.1.4
         responsibilities.                                                          PP

Notes    Loggers must have “Log Safe” training and MLEP approved training.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
         Forestry enterprises shall have a program for the use of certified         MF          10
16.1.5
         logging professionals (where available) and qualified logging
         professionals.
Notes    Minnesota Master Logger or MLEP-approved qualified logging training is required for at least one person per crew who is on site at least three
         times per week.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *

                                                                                                                                                                68
         Program Participants shall work individually and/or with SFI             MF         10
16.2
         Implementation Committees, logging or forestry associations, or
         appropriate agencies or others in the forestry community to foster
         improvement in the professionalism of wood producers.
Notes    Support for / involvement in Minnesota’s SFI Implementation Committee = $41,555.50 (2009 SFI Progress Report Form)



                                                                                 Audit   C        EXR   Maj     Min     OFI   Likely   Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                 -or                                          Gap *    Conf. *
         Participation in or support of SFI Implementation Committees to          MF         10
16.2.1
         establish criteria and identify delivery mechanisms for wood
         producers’ training courses that address:
                  a. awareness of sustainable forestry principles and the
                  SFI program;
                  b. best management practices, including streamside
                  management and road construction, maintenance
                  and retirement;
                  c. reforestation, invasive exotic plants and animals, forest
                  resource conservation, aesthetics, and special sites;
                  d. awareness of responsibilities under the U.S.
                  Endangered Species Act, the Canadian Species at Risk
                  Act, and other measures to protect wildlife habitat
                  (e.g. Forests with Exceptional Conservation Value);
                  e. logging safety;
                  f. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
                  (OSHA) and Canadian Centre for Occupational Health
                  and Safety (COHS) regulations, wage and hour rules,
                  and other provincial, state and local employment laws;
                  g. transportation issues;
                  h. business management;
                  i. public policy and outreach; and
                  j. awareness of emerging technologies.




                                                                                                                                                 69
Notes   Support for / involvement in Minnesota’s SFI Implementation Committee = $41,555.50 (2009 SFI Progress Report Form)
        Minnesota’s approach is called MLEP; the program is actively revising its training programs to ensure they meet the needs including the revised
        SFI requirements.
        Source: Minnesota Logger Education Program Information Sheet:
        What Is The Minnesota Logger Education Program?
        MLEP is a logger-initiated program that provides business owners and employees with the training and education necessary to better meet the
        ever-challenging demands of their profession head-on. MLEP was established in 1995 and is a 501I(3) organization.
        • Membership is comprised of logging business owners, wood dealers and associate members.
        • Membership is voluntary and reflects the commitment of logging business owners to safe, productive, and environmentally responsible
            timber harvesting.
        • MLEP members are responsible for an estimated 95 percent of Minnesota’s annual timber harvest and are committed to sustainable forest
            management.
        • MLEP training is designed to meet the expectations and requirements of certification and environmental management programs like the
                                           ®
            Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and ISO 14001.

        Education Requirements
                                                                                     ®
        The Minnesota Logger Education Program, in cooperation with the Minnesota SFI Implementation Committee, agree that to be considered (1) a
        “qualified logging professional” in Minnesota and maintain your MLEP membership you must meet the following requirements:

        First-year training requirements
        Provisional members (applicants) are required to attend three days of training covering safety, first aid, CPR, and Minnesota’s Forest
        Management Guidelines (BMPs).
               Guideline Training: 16 hours of training on the Forest Management Guidelines
               Safety Training: 8 hours of first-aid and CPR training is required (LogSafe)

        Annual training requirements
        To maintain MLEP membership, a business owner and/or an “in-woods” person actively responsible for the logging site must attend:
        Safety Training – Twelve (12) hours of safety training every two years
        Four (4) hours of CPR
        Four (4) hours of First-Aid
        Four (4) hours of Safety Training
        Continuing Education – Twelve (12) hours of MLEP training every two years
        Mix of 4 and 8 hour workshops:

        At a minimum, SFI requires the business owner and one “in-woods” person actively responsible for each logging site must be a “qualified logging
        professional”. In some cases, the business owner may also be the “in-woods” person.



                                                                                                                                                          70
                                                                                Audit    C        EXR     Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                -or                                                  Gap *      Conf. *
         Participation in or support of SFI Implementation Committees to         MF          10
16.2.2
         establish criteria for recognition of logger certification programs,
         where they exist, that include:
                  a. completion of SFI Implementation Committee recognized
                  logger training programs and meeting continuing
                  education requirements of the training program;
                  b. independent in-the-forest verification of conformance
                  with the logger certification program standards;
                  c. compliance with all applicable laws and regulations
                  including responsibilities under the U.S. Endangered
                  Species Act, the Canadian Species at Risk Act and
                  other measures to protect wildlife habitat;
                  d. use of best management practices to protect water
                  quality;
                  e. logging safety;
                  f. compliance with acceptable silviculture and utilization
                  standards;
                  g. aesthetic management techniques employed where
                  applicable; and
                  h. adherence to a management or harvest plan that is
                  site specific and agreed to by the forest landowner.
Notes    Support for / involvement in Minnesota’s SFI Implementation Committee = $41,555.50 (2009 SFI Progress Report Form)
         Minnesota’s approach is called Minnesota Master Logger Program; the program is actively revising its training programs to ensure they meet the
         needs including the revised SFI requirements. This was confirmed in part through review of correspondence between MLEP and Minnesota DNR.




                                                                                                                                                          71
Objective 17. Community Involvement in the Practice of Sustainable Forestry.
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by encouraging the public and forestry community to participate in the commitment to sustainable forestry, and publicly
report progress.
                                                                                      Audit C          EXR        Maj     Min      OFI      Likely      Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                      -or                                                   Gap *       Conf. *
            Program Participants shall support and promote efforts by                  MF         10
 17.1
            consulting foresters, state, provincial and federal agencies, state or
            local groups, professional societies, conservation organizations,
            indigenous peoples and governments, community groups, sporting
            organizations, labor, universities, extension agencies, the
            American Tree Farm System® and/or other landowner
            cooperative programs to apply principles of sustainable forest
            management.
 Notes      Out of 40 folks in the room for the opening meeting:
                •    none are Tree Farm Inspectors; but later interviews confirmed that some field staff are Tree Farm Inspectors;
                •    24+ have spoken to school or community groups in the past year;
                •    20+ are on forestry, resource-stewardship, or conservation oriented boards or commissions.
            Interviews confirmed that many Minnesota DNR employees based in the areas and regions are involved in public outreach and education regarding
            sustainable resource management.

                                                                                     Audit    C         EXR       Maj     Min        OFI    Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
            Support, including financial, for efforts of SFI Implementation            MF         10
 17.1.1
            Committees.

 Notes      Financial support for / involvement in Minnesota’s SFI Implementation Committee = $41,555.50 (2009 SFI Progress Report Form)


                                                                                     Audit    C         EXR       Maj     Min        OFI    Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
            Support for the development of educational materials for use with          MF         10
 17.1.2
            forest landowners (e.g. information packets, websites, newsletters,
            workshops, tours, etc.).
 Notes      Confirmed; Minnesota DNR develops a range of information materials;
            Support for / involvement in Minnesota’s SFI Implementation Committee: Rebecca Barnard volunteered to work with a subgroup of the SIC to
            update the landowner manual. Andrew Arends has already begun revising portions of the landowner manual – such as the portion on SFIA.


                                                                                                                                                                          72
                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj    Min   OFI    Likely    Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                        Gap *     Conf. *
         Support for the development of regional, state or provincial                MF         10
17.1.3
         information materials that provide forest landowners with practical
         approaches for addressing special sites and biological diversity issues,
         such as invasive exotic plants and animals, specific wildlife habitat,
         Forests with Exceptional Conservation Value, and threatened and
         endangered species.
Notes    Confirmed; Minnesota DNR develops a range of information materials; support for the Minnesota SIC.

                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj    Min   OFI    Likely    Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                        Gap *     Conf. *
         Participation in efforts to support or promote conservation of managed      MF         10
17.1.4
         forests through voluntary market-based incentive programs such as
         current-use taxation programs, Forest Legacy Program or
         conservation easements.
Notes    In 2010 Minnesota DNR will acquire two large conservation easements that protect nearly 250,000 acres.



                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj    Min   OFI    Likely    Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                        Gap *     Conf. *
         Program Participants are knowledgeable about credible regional              JH,        10
17.1.5
         conservation planning and priority-setting efforts that include a broad     MF
         range of stakeholders and have a program to take into account the
         results of these efforts in planning.
Notes    Use of Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan in planning at Subsection level and others.
         Source: Introduction to the Chippewa Plains SFRMP
         http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/subsection/cp_pmop/final/sfrmp_cppmop_introduction.pdf
         “SFRMP and Minnesota Forest Resources Council Regional Landscape Planning: The recommended desired outcomes, goals, and strategies
         developed for the North Central Landscape Region by the North Central Regional Landscape Committee under the direction of the Minnesota
         Forest Resources Council (MFRC) Landscape Program were considered in developing this SFRMP. Members of the CP-PMOP Planning Team
         participated as members of the North Central Regional Landscape Committee. By considering the recommendations from the North Central
         Landscape Region Plan, the decisions for management of DNR-administered lands incorporate recommendations from a broader landscape
         perspective across all ownerships and assist in cooperation across ownerships in this larger landscape area.”

                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj    Min   OFI    Likely    Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                        Gap *     Conf. *

                                                                                                                                                   73
         Program Participants shall support and promote, at the state,               JL         10
17.2
         provincial or other appropriate levels, mechanisms for public
         outreach, education and involvement related to sustainable forest
         management.
Notes    See indicators.


                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                               Gap *      Conf. *
         Periodic educational opportunities promoting sustainable                   MF,         10
17.2.1
         forestry, such as                                                          JL
                   a. field tours, seminars, websites, webinars or workshops;
                   b. educational trips; c. self-guided forest management trails;
                   d. publication of articles, educational pamphlets or
                   newsletters; or
                   e. support for state, provincial, and local forestry
                   organizations and soil and water conservation districts.
Notes    Minnesota DNR employees at all levels and locations regularly speak to youth groups, school groups, and civic groups about forestry and related
         issues. Evidence of educational materials included: “All About Minnesota’s Forests and Trees: A Primer” written by Minnesota DNR staff, is a 57-
         page book on tree and forest ecology and biology; the “Minnesota’s Biomes” poster; and the “Minnesota State Forest Recreation Guide”. This
         final item, while primarily designed to provide information on recreation opportunities in the state forests, includes environmental education.
         Topics include Minnesota’s Biomes, forest fire prevention, forest pest prevention practices, and sources of more information.
         Web-based Educational Resources
            • Activity guides and projects
            • Forestry information
            • Posters
            • Educator Workshops
         Web-based Educational programs
            • Arbor Month
            • Project Learning Tree
            • School Forest
            • Wildfire Prevention
            • More Kids in the Woods

                                                                                    Audit   C        EXR   Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                               Gap *      Conf. *




                                                                                                                                                            74
         Program Participants shall establish, at the state, provincial, or       MF          10
17.3
         other appropriate levels, procedures to address concerns raised by
         loggers, consulting foresters, employees, unions, the public or
         other Program Participants regarding practices that appear
         inconsistent with the SFI Standard principles and objectives.
Notes    See indicators.



                                                                                 Audit    C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI      Likely       Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                 -or                                                   Gap *        Conf. *
         Support for SFI Implementation Committees (e.g. toll free numbers        MF          10
17.3.1
         and other efforts) to address concerns about apparent nonconforming
         practices.
Notes    Minnesota’s SFI Implementation Committee has an Inconsistent Practices Procedure. Support for / involvement in Minnesota’s SFI
         Implementation Committee = $41,555.50 (2009 SFI Progress Report Form)

                                                                                 Audit    C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI      Likely       Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                 -or                                                   Gap *        Conf. *
         Process to receive and respond to public inquiries. SFI                  MF,         10
17.3.2
         Implementation Committees shall submit data annually to SFI Inc.         JL
         regarding concerns received and responses.
Notes    Quarterly meetings with Minnesota Forest Industries and changes are made when feasible.
         MFRC involvement includes opportunities.
         DNR Data Deli, available on the internet, provides a good means for the public to become informed and thus to provide more useful input.




                                                                                                                                                              75
Objective 18. Public Land Management Responsibilities.
To promote and implement sustainable forest management on public lands.
                                                                                     Audit    C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
           Program Participants with forest management responsibilities on            JL,         10
 18.1
           public lands shall participate in the development of public land           RH
           planning and management processes.
 Notes     Anoka Sand Plains SFRMP was held up while decision about oak savannah restoration was made. Public input will occur only after the general
           approach has been developed.
           Landscape plans through the MFRC were derived in an open process with public involvement.

                                                                                     Audit    C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
           Involvement in public land planning and management activities with         JL,         10
 18.1.1
           appropriate governmental entities and the public.                          RH

 Notes     Minnesota DNR has developed its Subsection Forest Resource Management Planning process to include public involvement during all five steps of
           the process: 1. Initiating the Planning Process, 2. Assessment and Issue Identification, 3. Strategies, DFFC, and Stand Selection Criteria, 4. Draft
           List of Stands to Be Treated and New Access Needs, 5. Final Plan.
           Minnesota DNR has long been involved in collaborative landscape planning, in part through the Minnesota Forest Resources Council Meetings and
           Regional Landscape Committee Meetings.

                                                                                     Audit    C        EXR      Maj      Min      OFI       Likely     Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
           Appropriate contact with local stakeholders over forest management         JL,         10
 18.1.2
           issues through state, provincial, federal or independent collaboration.    RH




                                                                                                                                                                  76
Notes    ForestView website allows any interested person to view proposed and approved prescriptions to be reviewed.
         Statewide and local stakeholder lists were provided.
         DNR provides numerous opportunities for the public to consult and provide input on forest management, including:
            • Public meetings and comment periods on Subsection Forest Resource Management Plans (SFRMPs);
            • Regularly scheduled meetings with stakeholder groups;
            • Annual Roundtables with hunting, fishing, and environmental groups;
            • Commissioners Advisory Committee meetings for Scientific and Natural Areas

         The MN Forest Resources Council has in place a citizen complaint process that has proven useful in identifying citizen concerns about specific
         timber harvesting and forest management activities.
         Review of stakeholder input process for the Annual Plan Amendments (APA); with concerns regarding one part: "Comments will be accepted
         regarding these sites, but management actions may have already occurred by the time the public is notified or has had time to respond." One such
         APA list (Annual Plan Additions FY2011 No. 1” dated August 27, 2010) was reviewed, and the team found that these are relatively minor
         additions, give the acres reported, so it doesn't appear the DNR is using the APAs as a way of deviating from their management plan.

                                                                                     Audit   C        EXR    Maj       Min     OFI      Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                Gap *      Conf. *
         Program Participants with forest management responsibilities on             RH,         10
18.2
         public lands shall confer with affected indigenous peoples.                 JL

Notes    See indicator.

                                                                                     Audit   C        EXR    Maj       Min     OFI      Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                     -or                                                Gap *      Conf. *
         Program that includes communicating with affected indigenous                RH,         10
18.2.1
         peoples to enable Program Participants to:                                  JL
                  a. understand and respect traditional forest-related
                  knowledge;
                  b. identify and protect spiritually, historically, or culturally
                  important sites; and
                  c. address the use of non-timber forest products of value
                  to indigenous peoples in areas where Program Participants
                  have management responsibilities on public lands.




                                                                                                                                                             77
Notes   Item a: There is not much traditional use of state lands, so knowledge not used/available
        Item b:
            All staff was knowledgeable about how to obtain cultural resource information from the Minnesota DNR archeologist; archeologist and SHIPO
            have contacts with tribes. Minnesota DNR has an archeologist who reviews projects, communicates with tribes and whose work helps ensure
            conformance. Some foresters were knowledgeable and had been trained to identify cultural sites; 3-day training for new staff covers this issue.
            Minnesota DNR participates in the 1854 Treaty Authority and the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Council in which issues involving the 1854
            Treaty are discussed.
            Mike Carroll is responsible for keeping in contact with natural resources representatives of 3 tribes: Leech Lake, Red Lake, and White Earth
            MOU with Fond du Lac on fires and roads.
            Blackduck Area staff work closely with Red Lake Tribe.
            Representatives of the White Earth, Leech Lake (forester and cultural resource personnel), and Fond du Lac tribes indicate consultation and
            good working relationships. One tribe expressed concern that MN DNR could make more concerted efforts to consult on management plan
            cooperation.
        Item c: Minnesota DNR staff are not aware of any non-timber forest products desired by tribes on state lands; tribes tend to use federal lands for
        gathering




                                                                                                                                                              78
Objective 19. Communications and Public Reporting.
To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by documenting progress and opportunities for improvement.
                                                                                    Audit C           EXR    Maj     Min      OFI      Likely    Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                Gap *     Conf. *
           A Certified Program Participant shall provide a summary audit            MF          10
 19.1
           report, prepared by the certification body, to SFI Inc. after the
           successful completion of a certification, recertification or
           surveillance audit to the SFI 2010-2014 Standard.
 Notes     Understood; NSF will develop the summary report as part of the re-certification process and Minnesota DNR is prepared to provide the summary
           report to SFI, Inc.

                                                                                   Audit    C        EXR     Maj     Min      OFI      Likely    Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                   -or                                                 Gap *     Conf. *
           The summary audit report submitted by the Program Participant (one       MF          10
 19.1.1
           copy must be in English), shall include, at a minimum,
                  a. a description of the audit process, objectives and scope;
                  b. a description of substitute indicators, if any, used in
                  the audit and a rationale for each;
                  c. the name of Program Participant that was audited,
                  including its SFI representative;
                  d. a general description of the Program Participant’s
                  forestland and manufacturing operations included in
                  the audit;
                  e. the name of the certification body and lead auditor
                  (names of the audit team members, including technical
                  experts may be included at the discretion of the audit
                  team and Program Participant);
                  f. the dates the certification was conducted and completed;
                  g. a summary of the findings, including general
                  descriptions of evidence of conformity and any
                  nonconformities
                  and corrective action plans to address
                  them, opportunities for improvement, and exceptional
                  practices; and
                  h. the certification decision.
 Notes     Understood by both parties; part of NSF’s reporting protocol.




                                                                                                                                                           79
                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
         Program Participants shall report annually to SFI Inc. on their            MF          10
19.2
         conformance with the SFI 2010-2014 Standard.

Notes    See indicators.



                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
         Prompt response to the SFI annual progress report.                         MF          C
19.2.1

         From: Doty, Amy Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:50 AM To: Michael Ferrucci
Notes
         Subject: RE: Required SFI Annual Survey Reports
         HI, Mike. Electronic forms were submitted for Minnesota DNR. Amy M. Doty, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Inc.

                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
         Recordkeeping for all the categories of information needed for SFI         MF          10
19.2.2
         annual progress reports.

Notes    The Department continues to maintain records of all activities; records related to timber and vegetation management are particularly detailed.



                                                                                  Audit     C        EXR      Maj       Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                  -or                                                     Gap *      Conf. *
         Maintenance of copies of past reports to document progress and             MF          10
19.2.3
         improvements to demonstrate conformance to the SFI 2010-2014
         Standard.
Notes    Copies of past reports are maintained by Rebecca Barnard, Forest Certification Coordinator.




                                                                                                                                                               80
Objective 20. Management Review and Continual Improvement.
To promote continual improvement in the practice of sustainable forestry, and to monitor, measure and report performance in achieving the commitment to sustainable
forestry.
                                                                                    Audit C            EXR      Maj     Min       OFI      Likely   Likely
           2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                    Gap *    Conf. *
            Program Participants shall establish a management review system           MF                 X
 20.1
            to examine findings and progress in implementing the SFI
            Standard, to make appropriate improvements in programs, and
            to inform their employees of changes.
 Notes      The management review program including internal audit teams, the Forest Certification Implementation Team (FCIT), and internal and external
            BMP audits to identify and address issues relative DNR’s continued adherence to SFI standards is exceptional.
            See indicators.

                                                                                    Audit    C        EXR       Maj      Min      OFI      Likely     Likely
            2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                    -or                                                    Gap *      Conf. *
            System to review commitments, programs and procedures                     MF         10
 20.1.1
            to evaluate effectiveness.

            Minnesota DNR employs a Forest Certification Coordinator and has a Forest Certification Implementation Team, both charged with regular review
 Notes
            of certification requirements and progress towards meeting them. These efforts have focused on issues identified by third-party audits (both SFI
            and FSC) including non-conformances and opportunities for improvement.
            Harvest supervision records, harvest closeout forms, and area and regional sampling of harvest closeouts provide information that FCIT and others
            use to evaluate effectiveness. Another key aspect of the system is the program for internal audits. See 20.1.2 below.
            There are SFRMP Monitoring Plans; these plans and their implementation form the core of the management program. Initial SFRMP
            Implementation Monitoring information has been developed for four SFRMPs; with more analysis for three of the four (next paragraph).
            Confirmed SFRMP Team’s review of progress towards implementing the SFRMP general directions, goals, and strategies: “Where SFRMP Plans
            have been completed, the “core three” members of the SFRMP Team shall conduct periodic review meetings to identify areas of concern and
            monitor progress towards implementing the SFRMP general directions, goals, and strategies (as directed in the SFRMP Guidebook).” Source:
            Interdisciplinary Forest Management Coordination Framework, December 2007. The NE Core 3 has met with affected Areas to review and discuss
            the monitoring results and recommendations. Confirmed summaries/agenda for several of these meetings.
            Information from the implementation monitoring reports were included in 3-year Stand List Extension internal discussions and final documents
            (attached) for: Blufflands/Rochester Plateau SFRMP and Agassiz Lowlands SFRMP.
            The Coordination Framework ‘directs Area Foresters to convene Annual Joint Coordination Meetings to include “assigned Ecological Resources
            staff, Area Forestry staff, and Fish and Wildlife staff”. The purpose of these meetings is to “encourage information exchange on all proposed
            forest management activities within the forestry area, as well as to provide an opportunity for interdisciplinary consultation on stands on the
            annual stand exam list.” These annual coordination meetings also serve to remind staff of SFMRP goals and review implementation monitoring
            information as it becomes available’ according to Minnesota DNR. Auditors confirmed that this is indeed happening.

                                                                                                                                                                      81
                                                                                        Audit     C         EXR        Maj       Min       OFI       Likely      Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                        -or                                                          Gap *       Conf. *
         System for collecting, reviewing, and reporting information to                   MF          10                                     10
20.1.2
         management regarding progress in achieving SFI 2010-2014 Standard
         objectives and performance measures.
Notes    There is an opportunity to improve IAT process to ensure that all issues uncovered during the Internal Audits are considered when identifying
         “focused topics” for subsequent Internal Audits.
         Confirmed program for internal audits and for summarizing their results and reviewing these with the Forest Certification Implementation Team
         (FCIT). Confirmed continuing program of Internal Audits by review of 2008 and 2009 internal audit results and executive summaries. The Internal
         Audits are the key part of Minnesota DNR’s program to evaluate the organization’s implementation and effectiveness of responses to Non-
         conformances, Opportunities for Improvement (two categories of audit findings) or other changes or improvements to the overall program of
         sustainable forest management.
         Information from Timber Sale Inspections and annual Internal Audits appear to be getting back to the areas and regions in a more timely manner
         than previously.
         Since 2008 the Internal Audit Team Charter and the reporting process have been revised.
         2009 Internal Audit Locations: Cambridge & Carlos Avery WMA (Crew 1); Tower (Crew 2); Baudette (Crew 3)
         Confirmed the Executive Summary – 2009 Forest Certification Internal Audit, Prepared on: May 13, 2010, Prepared by: Rebecca Barnard, Forest
         Certification Coordinator, Reviewed by: Internal Audit Team (IAT) Members, Forest Certification Implementation Team (FCIT). Topics of the
         report and some key findings included:
            Timber Sale Basics, Administration, & Inspection: … Recommendations for improving conformance indicate that Staff from all Divisions could benefit
            from Site-level Guideline refresher training, improved documentation of interdisciplinary discussions and management decisions is needed, and a better
            connection is needed between stand prescriptions and SFRMP goals.
            Old-Growth Stand Identification & Management: … Staff are generally knowledgeable of where to find relevant policies on the DNR intranet, Staff know
            how to identify Old-Growth stands in current databases, Staff have a good general knowledge and understanding of DNR policies regarding Old Forest
            Management Complexes (OFMCs), Ecologically Important Lowland Conifers (EILCs), and Special Management Zones (SMZs), and interdisciplinary
            consultation is occurring on topics / sites relative to Old-Growth… the Old-Growth land cover database in FIM needs to be updated and errors corrected, that
            there is a need for improved communication between the Areas and Regional Old-Growth Committees… Staff need to improve …knowledge of the intent of
            DNR’s EILC policy.
            MCBS Process & Sites of Outstanding or High Biodiversity Significance: …Recommendations for improving conformance indicate that there is a need to
            collect and preserve documentation of discussions regarding management decisions and interdisciplinary coordination efforts, and a need to provide Area Staff
            with clear direction on DNR’s interim HCVF approach.
            Invasive Species Management: …Recommendations for improving indicate a need for continued / additional invasive species training, and clarified and
            reinforced individual Division policies and operational orders, how to access/reference the policies and point data, and clarified reporting methods.
         NSF audit team assessed each of the recommendations from the IAT reports for improving conformance during the re-certification assessment.

                                                                                        Audit     C         EXR        Maj       Min       OFI       Likely      Likely
         2010-2014 Requirement
                                                                                        -or                                                          Gap *       Conf. *

                                                                                                                                                                            82
         Annual review of progress by management and determination of               MF        10
20.1.3
         changes and improvements necessary to continually improve
         conformance to the SFI 2010-2014 Standard.
Notes    Interviewed Minnesota DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten.
         Minnesota DNR is improving its ability to revise its programs, particularly training and information systems, based on the results of various
         monitoring protocols.
         “FRIT shall meet on an annual basis to review how well forest management directions in this coordination framework are working and recommend
         necessary changes. At that meeting FRIT shall discuss updates or additions to policy, guidelines, and recommendations and shall assign staff to
         update intranet links.” Source: Subsection “Changes and Review of Guidance Documents” within the Interdisciplinary Forest Management
         Coordination Framework, December 2007.




                                                                                                                                                           83
                                Site Notes and Participants
The following Minnesota DNR personnel participated in the review (table prepared by MN DNR):
Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Regional Directors & Division      Date
Directors
Name                   Div   Position                    Station      10/    10/   10/   10/   10/
                                                                      4      5     6     7     8
Holsten, Mark          DNR    DNR Commissioner             St. Paul   X
Martinson, Laurie      DNR    DNR Deputy                   St. Paul   X
                              Commissioner
Carroll, Mike          DNR    NW Regional Director         Bemidji    PM
Engwall, Craig         DNR    NE Regional Director         Grand      X
                                                           Rapids
Epperly, Dave          FOR    Forestry Division Director   St. Paul   X
Phillips, Olin         FOR    State Land & Fire Section    St. Paul   X      N     N
                              Manager                                        W     W
Schad, Dave            FAW    Fish & Wildlife Division     St. Paul   X
                              Director
Hirsch, Steve          EWR    Ecological Resources         St. Paul   X
                              Division Director
Boe, Forrest           PAT    Trails & Waterways           St. Paul   X
                              Division Director

Regional Managers
Name                   Div    Position                     Station    10/    10/   10/   10/   10/
                                                                      4      5     6     7     8
Nelson, Greg *         FOR       Assistant Regional Forest Bemidji    PM     N     N
                                 Manager (R1 - NW)                           W     W
Peterson, Paul            FOR Assistant Regional Forest    Grand    X              X
                                 Manager (R2 - NE)         Rapids
Rupert, Jim               FOR Regional Forest Manager      Grand    X         NE
                                 (R2 - NE)                 Rapids
Russell, Greg             FOR Assistant Regional Forest    St. Paul                            X
                                 Manager (R3 - Central)
Thomas, Dave              FOR Regional Forest Manager      Bemidji PM N       N
                                 (R1 - NW)                                W   W
Telander, Paul            FAW Regional Wildlife Manager Bemidji PM N          N
                                 (R1 - NW)                                W   W
Lightfoot, Jeff           FAW Regional Wildlife Manager Grand       X
                                 (R2 - NE)                 Rapids
Buesseler, Peter          EWR Regional Manager (R1 -       Bemidji        N   N
                                 NW)                                      W   W
Leibfried, Bob            EWR Regional Manager (R2 -       Grand    X     NE NE ?
                                 NE)                       Rapids
Maurer, Paul              PAT Regional Manager (R2 -       Grand    PM
                                 NE)                       Rapids
Forest Certification Implementation Team (FCIT) & Internal Audit Team (IAT) Members
Name                   Div    Position                     Station    10/    10/   10/   10/   10/

                                                                                                84
                                                                          4     5     6     7     8
Barnard, Rebecca         FOR    Certification Coordinator      St. Paul   X     NE    NE    X     X
                                (5/08-present)
Jacobson, Keith          FOR    Forest Products Utilization    St. Paul   X
                                & Marketing Prg Leader
Locke, Mike              FOR    Forest Regional Specialist     Bemidji    X     N     N
                                (ECS & Silviculture)                            W     W
Nelson, Jon              FOR    Legislative &                  St. Paul   X                       X
                                Environmental Review
                                Coordinator
Olfelt, Dave             PAT    Strategic Program Manager      Grand      X     NE    A     X
                                                               Rapids                 M
Osmundson, Cynthia       FAW    Forest Wildlife Program        St. Paul   X                       X
                                Consultant
Rusterholz, Kurt         EWR    Forest Ecologist               St. Paul   X     NE    NE    X     X
Thielen, Patty           FOR    Area Forest Supervisor         Baudett    X     N     N
                                                               e                W     W
Lee, Mike                EWR    Ecologist                      Sauk       X     N           X
                                                               Rapids           W
Marty, Becky             EWR    Regional Plant Ecologist       Bemidji    X     N     N           X
                                (R1 - NW)                                       W     W
Miller, Wade *           PAT    Area Supervisor                Thief      X     N     N     X
                                                               River            W     W
                                                               Falls
Wearne, Walker *         FOR    Forestry Specialist            Little                       X     X
                                                               Falls
Wolf, Kent *             FOR    Field Forester                 Detroit                N
                                                               Lakes                  W
Statewide & Regional Program Supervisors / Specialists
Name                     Div    Position                       Station    10/   10/   10/   10/   10/
                                                                          4     5     6     7     8
Baker, Lillian           FOR    Timber Sales Program           St. Paul   X
                                Supervisor
Ellering, Amber          FOR    Forestry Organization          St. Paul                     X     X
                                Management Analyst
Jones, Alan              FOR    Silviculture, Roads &          St. Paul   X
                                Lands Supv
Rossman, Dick            FOR    Statewide BMP Program          Bemidji    X     N           X
                                Coordinator                                     W
Dick, Ted                FAW    DNR Grouse Coordinator         Aitkin     X
Merchant, Steve          FAW    Wildlife Programs Manager      St. Paul                           X
Mix, Joe                 FAW    Assistant Regional             Grand      X
                                Fisheries Manager (R2)         Rapids
Converse, Carmen         EWR    MCBS Program Supervisor        St. Paul   PM
Pierce, Ann              EWR    Ecologist / Invasive Species   St. Paul   X                 X
                                Unit
Koehn, Jeffrey           ENF    Conservation Officer -         Grand      X     NE    NE    X
                                ATV Rec. Officer               Rapids
Dunn, Jim                ENF    Enforcement Northwest          Bemidji    X

                                                                                                   85
                                  Region Manager

Baudette & Blackduck Staff - NW Audit Crew (Mike Ferrucci)
Regional Program Supervisors / Specialists
Name                     Div      Position                      Station    10/   10/   10/   10/   10/
                                                                           4     5     6     7     8
Edmonds, Jeff            FOR      Regional Specialist (R1 -     Bemidji    X     N     N
                                  NW)                                            W     W
Haws, Katie              EWR      Nongame Specialist            Bemidji          N     N
                                                                                 W     W
Baudette & Blackduck Area Staff
Name                     Div      Position                      Station    10/   10/   10/   10/   10/
                                                                           4     5     6     7     8
Brubaker, Ryan           FOR      Forester                      Baudett          N
                                                                e                W
Carlson, Dana            FOR      Assistant Area Forest         Baudett          N
                                  Supervisor                    e                W
Johnson, Mark            FOR      Forester                      Baudett          N
                                                                e                W
Levasseur, Steven        FOR      Forestry Technician           Baudett          N
                                                                e                W
Lockner, William         FOR      Forestry Technician           Baudett          N
                                                                e                W
Bates, Mike              FOR      Forester                      Kelliher               N
                                                                                       W
Burns, Scot              FOR      Program Forester              Blackdu                N
                                  (Cooperative Forestry)        ck                     W
Coil, Jon                FOR      Forestry Technician           Kelliher               N
                                                                                       W
Laginess, Glen           FOR      Program Forester (Timber      Blackdu                N
                                  Sales)                        ck                     W
Rabe, Ron                FOR      Area Forest Supervisor        Blackdu                N
                                                                ck                     W
Tennant, Rob             FOR      Forester                      Blackdu                N
                                                                ck                     W
Dittrich, Jeff           FAW      Area Wildlife Manager         Baudett          N
                                                                e                W
Gorham, Shelley *        FAW      Area Wildlife Manager         Bemidji    X     N     N
                                                                                 W     W
Klemek, Blane            FAW      Assistant Area Wildlife       Bemidji                N
                                  Manager                                              W
Laudenslager, Scott      FAW      Assistant Wildlife Area       Red              N
                                  Mgr.                          Lake             W
                                                                WMA
Mehmel, Gretchen         FAW      Red Lake WMA Manager          Rooseve          N
                                                                lt               W
Thorson, Erik            FAW      Forest Wildlife Coordinator   Bemidji                N
                                                                                       W
Schotzko, Dave           PAT      Area Supervisor               Bemidji          N

                                                                                                    86
                                                                              W
Birchem, Jeff            ENF   Conservation Officer-          Warroad         N
                               Baudette                                       W
Znajda, Pat              ENF Conservation Officer-            Roseau                N
                               Blackduck                                            W
Tower & Hibbing Staff - NE Audit Crew (Robert Hrubes)
Regional Program Supervisors / Specialists
Name                     Div    Position                      Station   10/   10/   10/   10/   10/
                                                                        4     5     6     7     8
Albers, Mike             FOR    Regional Forest Health        Grand     X
                                Specialist (R2)               Rapids
Dubuque, Paul            FOR    Regional ECS Specialist       Grand    X                  X
                                (R2-NE)                       Rapids
Schnell, Bill            FOR    Regional Forester - Timber    Grand    X      NE
                                (R2)                          Rapids
Tillma, Doug             FOR    Regional Timber Specialist    Grand    X      NE    NE
                                (R2 - NE)                     Rapids
Quincer, Tim             FAW    Forest Wildlife Coordinator   Brainerd              NE
                                (R3)
Carlson, Bruce           EWR    Regional Plant Ecologist      Duluth    X           ?
                                (R2 - NE)
Crozier, Gaea *          EWR    Non-Game Specialist (R2 -     Grand           NE    NE
                                NE)                           Rapids

Tower & Hibbing Area Staff
Name                     Div    Position                      Station   10/   10/   10/   10/   10/
                                                                        4     5     6     7     8
Bealka, Angie            FOR    Forester                      Hibbing         NE
Bergstrom, Terry         FOR    Forestry Technician           Cook            NE
Guck, Ron                FOR    Forestry Technician           Tower           NE
Heisel, Bob              FOR    Program Forester (Timber)     Tower           NE
Helleloid, Lars          FOR    Forester                      Kabetog         NE
                                                              ama
Koscielak, John          FOR    Forester                      Cook            NE
Magnuson, Mike           FOR    Area Forest Supervisor        Tower           NE
Pakosz, Thor             FOR    Program Forester              Tower           NE
Rengo, Jeff              FOR    Program Forester              Tower           NE
Tweedale, Blair          FOR    Forester                      Tower           NE
Bergstrand, Kevin        FOR    Timber Sales Program          Hibbing               NE
                                Forester
Bowdish, Megan           FOR    Forester                      Eveleth               NE
Johnson, Cari            FOR    Forester                      Orr                   NE
Jungwirth, Amber         FOR    Forester                      Hibbing               NE
Maki, Robb               FOR    Forestry Technician           Hibbing               NE
Meyer, Chuck             FOR    Area Forest Supervisor        Hibbing               NE
Nelson, Roger            FOR    Forester                      Eveleth               NE
Nikolanci, Tom           FOR    Forester                      Eveleth               NE
Prazak, Dan *            FOR    Assistant Area Forest         Hibbing               NE

                                                                                                 87
                                 Supervisor
Russ, Tim                FOR     Program Forester (Lands,      Hibbing                NE
                                 Roads, Silviculture)
Sirjord, Jeff            FOR     Forestry Technician           Side                   NE
                                                               Lake
Splinter, Jon            FOR     Forester                      Side                   NE
                                                               Lake
Gessler, Walt            FAW     Wildlife Habitat Specialist   Tower            NE
Hines, Jeff              FAW     Assistant Area Wildlife       Eveleth                NE
                                 Manager
Rusch, Tom               FAW     Area Wildlife Manager         Tower            NE    NE
Geis, Joe                FAW     Area Fisheries Supervisor     Tower            A
                                                                                M
VanNingen, AmberBeth     EWR     Ecologist                     Tower            NE
Wilson, Steve            EWR     SNA Specialist                Tower            A
                                                                                M
Miller, Christa          PAT     Acting Area Supervisor        Tower            NE    NE
Voges, John              PAT     District Recreation           Grand            A
                                 Supervisor                    Rapids           M
Aitkin Area Audit - 2 Audit Crews
Crow-Wing County Audit Crew
Name                     Div     Position                      Station    10/   10/   10/   10/   10/
                                                                          4     5     6     7     8
Bertschi, Bud            FOR     Program Forester              Brainerd                     X
                                 (Silviculture)
Kobberdahl, Chris        FOR     Forestry Technician           Brainerd                     X
Leitinger, Brian         FOR     Area Forest Supervisor        Aitkin                       X
Lundgren, Paul           FOR     Program Forester (Timber)     Backus                       X
Makey, Dean              FOR     Forestry Specialist           Brainerd                     X
Mortensen, Mark          FOR     Program Forester              Brainerd                     ?
Schultz, Craig           FOR     Forester                      Brainerd                     ?
Sharp, Craig             FOR     Forestry Technician           Brainerd                     X
Drotts, Gary             FAW     Area Wildlife Manager         Brainerd                     X
Provost, Tom             ENF     District 9 Supervisor         St. Paul                     X
Aitkin Audit Crew
Huseby, Matt             FOR     Forester                      Aitkin                       X
Neuman, Darren           FOR     Program Forester              Grand                        X
                                                               Rapids
Nyberg, Glendon          FOR     Program Forester (Timber)     Aitkin                       X
Pisarek, Brian           FOR     Program Forester              Aitkin                       X
Reusch, Beth             FOR     Forester                      Aitkin                       X
Reusch, Zak              FOR     Forester                      Aitkin                       X
Wall, Josh               FOR     Forester                      Hill                         X
                                                               City
Wysocki, Daren           FOR     Assistant Area Forest         Aiktin                       X
                                 Supervisor
Kanz, Dave               FAW     Wildlife Specialist           Aitkin                       X
Thom, Nate               FAW     Area Wildlife Technician      Aitkin                       X

                                                                                                   88
Woizeschke, Kevin         EWR    Non-Game Wildlife           Brainerd                     X
                                 Biologist
Moore, Bob                PAT    Area Supervisor             Grand                        X
                                                             Rapids

Carlos Avery WMA Audit - 2 Audit Crews
Name                      Div    Position                    Station    10/   10/   10/   10/   10/
                                                                        4     5     6     7     8
Mouelle, Jean             FOR    Regional Forestry           St. Paul                           X
                                 Specialist - Silviculture
Mueller, Don              FOR    Area Forestry Supervisor    Cambrid                            X
                                                             ge
Quady, Bob                FOR    Forester                    Zimmr                              X
                                                             man
Gray, Katie               FOR    Forester                    Cambrid                            X
                                                             ge
Rhode, Dan                FAW    WMA Manager                 Carlos                             X
                                                             Avery
                                                             WMA
LaBarre, Jim              FAW    Assistant WMA Manager       Carlos                             X
                                                             Avery
                                                             WMA
Lueth, Bryan              FAW    North Metro Area Wildlife   Forest                             X
                                 Manager                     Lake
Welsh, Bob                FAW    Assistant Region Wildlife   Forest                             X
                                 Manager                     Lake
Larson, Krista            EWR    Acting Regional Non-game    St. Paul                           X
                                 Specialist (R3)
Texler, Hannah            EWR    Regional Plant Ecologist    St. Paul                           X
                                 (R3 - Central)
Peterson, Jason           ENF    District 14 Supervisor   East                                  X
                                                          Metro
FOR = Forestry Division          EWR = Ecological & Water ENF =
                                 Resources Division       Enforcement
                                                          Division
FAW = Fish & Wildlife Division   PAT = Parks & Trails     * = Internal Audit
                                 Division                 Team Member


Field Sites:
The Lead Auditors, in cooperation with DNR, identified 6 (of 15) Forestry Areas and Wildlife
Management Areas (primary strata) within which to sample field sites. DNR then provided a
summary of management activities and maps to help focus the field site selections and to
develop secondary strata within the areas. SCS then used randomized selection methods to select
a subset of all timber harvest and assigned a priority number to each one.

Each selected Timber Sale provided the framework for the field audit; the following additional
sites were incorporated where possible:

                                                                                                 89
•      Protected areas and special sites
•      Research and demonstration areas
•      Recreation sites
•      Road construction / reconstruction
•      Forest protection and prescribed burning
•      Planting, seeding, and site preparation
•      Timber stand improvement

In addition to the specific site-related topics listed below, all timber sale site visits by the
auditors included review of BMP and site-level guideline implementation. Review items
included size, location, and condition of landings; condition, layout, density, and erosion control
status of skid trails and roads; extent of residual stand damage; species, quantity, and distribution
of regeneration; effectiveness of watercourse protection zones and filter strips- where applicable;
species, quality, quantity, distribution, and size class of reserve trees. The intensity of the
inspections ranged from a brief snapshot to a complete walk through of the site.

Tuesday October, 5th

Tower Area Site Notes
JoAnn Hanowski and Robert Hrubes, Auditors

Stop 1: Permit X010614. 43 acre regeneration harvest in three blocks. Block 1-thinning in
natural regen red pine stand. Thinned to 90 ba, plan for entry on a 7-10 year. Block 2- Regen
cut in pine with white pine retention, good retention, plan to plant red pine. Block 3- aspen
regen with retention left by appraiser prescription. Retention numbers ok, left conifers.

Stop 2: X011927. active biomass harvest. Harvest half complete, but area harvested had minimal
retention within the aspen regen harvest area. One island left along edge of harvest.

Stop 3: X011026. Jack pine clearcut with white pine residuals next to a designated old growth
stand. Foresters were aware of and implemented the old growth guidelines.

Stop 4: X010486. Aspen regeneration with some ash island reserves. Pine retention and some
old aspen along edges of harvest.

Baudette Area Site Notes
Mike Ferrucci and Paul Pingrey, Auditors

Stop 1: Spooner WMA Prescribed Burn, west side County Road 13: 160-acre prescribed burn
planned, but lit by an arsonist; decided to follow the burn plan; objective to set back woody
vegetation in favor of more herbaceous was met; property goal open land management.

Stop 2: Permit X011872 Red Pine Thinning: 15 acre marked thinning not harvested yet

Stop 3: Permit X010653: Completed regeneration harvest with retention; 2 cutting blocks: Jack
Pine Cutting Block #2 where no Aspen was to be cut, but logger did cut some; Aspen Cutting
Block #1 consists of scattered pocket clearcuts with lowland brush type between.

                                                                                                  90
Stop 4: Permit X011494: Completed regeneration harvest with varying retention levels in six
cutting blocks; Block A is half on LUP and half state forest (con-con) so LUP has significant
retention and state portion had little; discussed provision in retention guidelines allowing 20% of
the area of regeneration treatments to have less or more retention, in this case justified by goal of
regenerating jack pine; Block C retained large, dispersed Red pine and was seeded with Jack
pine, has many tiny seedlings; Block D roadside good visually.

Stop 5: Manweiler Wildlife Impoundment; renovation to water-control structure; cooperative
project between Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and MnDNR.

Stop 6: Permit X0122019: Active 16-acre Jack Pine harvest with retention of red pine, balsam
fir, and birch as well as roadside buffer; Interviewed buyer/loggers Bob and Marlin Ravndalen;
loggers trained, first aid kits present but no spill kit

Stop 7: Founce State Forest Campground

Stop 8: Planting Site t15933w13000646: 2004 clearcut 18 acres, was not adequately stocked in
2007 at 3-year regeneration survey (100 tpa), 2008 planted 850 Jack pine per acre, 2009
regeneration survey 600 trees per acre; 60% of plots stocks just meeting criteria, but more natural
seedlings are expected and starting to be evident; planting crews appear to be treated well

Stop 9: Red Lake WMA older Jack Pine harvest retained all Red Pine and 15 marked Jack Pine
per acre; appearance of a thinning

Stop 10: Founce State Forest Road: well constructed and maintained.

Stop 11: Bankton Cemetery: cultural site; sign and fence

Stop 12: Pine Grove Camp: long-term hunting lease program, plans to phase out over time,
extended leases to the lifetime of any named family member

Stop 13: Hunter Walking Trails: maintained

Stop 14: Bankton Forest Road, bridge over the North Branch of the Rapid River: on list for
replacement, not much freeboard below bridge

Stop 15: Pitt Grade Forest Road, bridge over the South Branch of the Rapid River: replaced
recently, very appealing wooden design.

Stop 16: Permit X011876: Completed portion of a partial harvest removing aspen and leaving
most oak; discussed regenerating oak but foresters feel this is a problem for the future because
the oaks are relatively young.

Wednesday, October 6th

Hibbing Area Site Notes
JoAnn Hanowski and Robert Hrubes, Auditors


                                                                                                   91
Stop 1: F010228. Decorative tree harvest on regenerated black spruce. TSI and monetary
benefits. Have rutting language in contract, water crossings.

Stop 2: X011776. Intermediate thinning of natural origin red pine to target of 90-100ba. Harvest
was operator selection, and very little residual damage occurred on the site.

Stop 3: X010920. Land administered by trails/parks with 4 cut blocks.

Block 1: removed aspen and left multi-aged white pine—no large aspen left, discussed
opportunities for this from wildlife standpoint.

Block 2: Looked at a stream crossing- looked good, no sediments and water was flowing.

Block 3: Black spruce clearcut with a few green trees retained. Concern about black spruce
being replaced by tamarack, which is a less desirable tree species.

Stop 3: X011497
North Block: Aspen regeneration harvest with jack pine retained in an island. Site preparation
and planting with white spruce was done on the wetter areas. Red pine was planted on the dryer
areas.

South Block: Aspen regeneration harvest with green tree retention. Department hired excavator
to rake slash. State will burn slash and plant the area to spruce and pine.

Blackduck Area Site Notes
Mike Ferrucci and Paul Pingrey, Auditors

Stop 1: Permit F010287. Small 4 acre patch was set up as an informal sale to address tamarack
dieback. Aspens were included to make the sale marketable. The harvest was an Annual Sale
Addition (not part of the regular compartment review) due to the salvage need. Tract was
harvested by a small producer in February 2009. Some larger aspen trees were retained in
groups.

Stop 2: Permit X010761. Aspen clearcut with reserved balsam fir, ash and bur oak trees. Harvest
was completed in the summer, slash was scattered. Forester says he would have taken the ash,
too, in consideration of EAB if the sale were established now. The adjoining private neighbor
had been notified by mail of the pending harvest.

Stop 3: Permit B011253. Basic Norway pine pole stand thinning operation to 100-120 square
feet of basal area. The sale was established as part of a "pine initiative" directed by the central
office to provide industry with a supply since sales from other private lands were depressed due
to low prices.

Stop 4: Future Old Growth site. An area of older, larger Norway pines and hardwoods selected
for passive management. The surrounding stands are being managed on an extended rotation
basis to create an "old forest complex". The intent is to write an old growth management plan for


                                                                                                  92
each site, but that may be challenging considering the number (at least 200 sites) and shortage of
staff.

Stop 5: Sale Permit X010914. Regeneration harvest of aspen and jack pine. White spruce poles
on the site were retained for wildlife cover. Site has good jack pine regeneration. The forester
noted some rutting issues that were resolved with the logger.

Stop 6: Permit X010919. A 26 acre regeneration harvest of aspen and balsam fir, cutting 80%
complete. Scattered jack pines were retained, but they are starting to blow down. Presale meeting
with the logger to go over sale specifications was discussed.

Stop 7: Permit X011665. Aspen regeneration harvest with full tree skidding to scarify the site.
White spruce seed was direct cast on the site in the spring of 2010. A skidder was rented to do
the seeding.


Thursday, October 7th

Aitkin Area Site Notes
JoAnn Hanowski and Mike Ferrucci, Auditors

Stop 1: X011603. Aspen regeneration harvest within a designated HCVF area. HCVF value was
a wetland complex that had Trumpeter Swans. Correct consultation of eco/water to gain more
knowledge and appropriate management for the stand. Good retention, one wetland crossing
with rutting that did not exceed BMP’s.

Stop 2: X011353. Little Willow WMA. 13 acre aspen regeneration harvest in area around old
homestead. Good retention and protection of cultural resources. Managing for oak/pine.

Stop 3: B010633. Marked harvest along willow river. Job left uncut variable width buffer to
include good wildlife trees.

Stop 4: B010282. Regeneration harvest with oak residuals—good job of avoiding wetlands and
keeping slash out of wetlands. Nice job with very little residual tree damage.

Stop 5: White ELK ATV trail. Signage to close trail due to wet weather. Trail in good
condition.

Stop 6: Hawkeye TSI project—money available to hire local contractor to do some TSI in a
hardwood stand. One of the 15 case studies in the ECS program. Foresters have an
experimental data collection system set-up.

Stop 7: F010047. Decorative tree harvest in lowland conifer which is now an HCVF. Will
continue to harvest tree tops—some compaction on site but no rutting was observed.




                                                                                                  93
Crow Wing County - Aitkin Area Site Notes
Robert Hrubes and Paul Pingrey, Auditors

Stop 1: X011429. Mesic Hardwood Regeneration Harvest (Even-Aged Silivicultural Treatment)
Site is designated for a clear-cut with reserves but not cut. Foresters thought that the site index of
60 was too poor for northern hardwood management, although ecologist says uneven-aged
management would have been more appropriate for the HCVF red-shoulder hawk habitat
objective. Even-aged management of such sites appears to be Standard Operating Procedure, but
more flexibility is warranted. Stand is located in a HCVF zone, but was set up before the HCVF
description was identified. Sale contract says "steep slopes" are to be left uncut, however that
will be up to the loggers discretion (reserve trees on steep slopes were not marked). Entrance
road to site was marked "Private Road" by adjoining owner with access road easement, and so
foresters will take administrative action to remove sign.

Stop 2: B010922. Split into four blocks with mesic hardwood stands similar to the first site and
aspen-birch blocks. Even-aged management with some blocks being cut in 1st stage of a two-
step commercial clearcut (a shelterwood with 70% crown cover residual) and aspen areas being
regenerated. Basal injuries to residual oak in shelterwood areas is high (logger put on notice of
pending fine). One tree noted as cut outside of sale boundary (timber trespass). Also, this was a
mark-to-cut job, but foresters did not apply stump marks and so it is difficult to determine if
logger took unmarked trees. Sale is located in high biodiversity, HCVF red-shoulder hawk area,
and so changing future prescription to all-aged management might be considered. The
silvicultural objective expressed on stand prescription form was vague, although coded as 1111.

Stop 3: B010574. 142 acre Oak Regeneration Harvest using an Even-Aged-Shelterwood (1st
cut), although the prescription in the stand sheet calls for maintaining northern hardwood. Site
index noted as 70. Sale is complete and closed, removing aspen, red maple and some oak. Site is
flat, and residual trees came through with little damage. Foresters discussed the possibly of using
prescribed fire to kill remaining NH reproduction. Appears to be another opportunity, however,
to consider all-aged rather than just even-aged management.

Stop 4: X011730: Aspen Regeneration Harvest-Even-Aged-Clearcut-w/Reserves. Sale is closed
and site shows excellent aspen sprouting. Forester left uncut buffer along the town road in
consideration of a neighbor's house that adjoins the stand. Patches of uncut aspen and oak were
also left within sale area for good retention of wildlife cover.

Stop 5: Small 3 acre white spruce plantation (off site, dry sand). Site was originally a jack pine
harvest that was furrowed and planted back to jack pine in 1998, which failed. Second recourse
was to plant spruce, and so the native oaks and other vegetation was killed with Accord/Oust
herbicide, and the site was hand-plated to spruce in 2009. Herbicide was applied at a minimal
rate, the site was properly posted, and consent was sought from an adjoining private neighbor
(who requested and received an un-treated 80' buffer along his property line).

Stop 6: F010352. Closed sale of a narrow strip harvest of jack pine from 4 acres. Site has good
retention of red pine and white poles. Harvest was sold directly to a small hand-cutter who first
did not have safety training, but who got the training in order to be qualified. Site may have

                                                                                                   94
adequate oak, aspen, and birch regeneration, but if not, the foresters are considering hand
planting white pines on the site.


Friday, October 8th

Carlos Avery WMA Site Notes
JoAnn Hanowski and Paul Pingrey, Auditors

Stop 1: Old nursery area that is now being used to grow and harvest native prairie seeds. Team
discussed origins of the property (the old Crex Carpet Company land) and how the Wildlife
Management Documents for Carlos-Avery WMA preserves the historic background. Some of the
site buildings are on a historic registry.

Stop 2: Pool 9 water control structure recently replaced with new habitat funding totaling
$121,000. Although habitat restoration funding is plentiful, money to maintain boundaries,
access roads and parking areas is hard to come by. Manager explained how the Water
Management Plan was developed to assure no off-site water impacts to neighbors. (There was a
law-suit in the 1980's when an adjoining owner challenged operation of the WMA.) Water levels
are checked twice a week. Beaver problems are monitored by a contracted trapper. Some tribal
gathering (deer hunting) occurs on the north end of the property.

Stop 3: Old stone bridge constructed by CCC and restored by DNR in 2006-2007.

Stop 4: Controlled duck hunt blinds, developed in response to Conservation Roundtable input
and hunters wanting more quality hunting opportunities.

Stop 5: Handicapped deer blind that will be used for special hunt. The hunt is coordinated by the
"Capable Partners" program which brings disabled hunters out to the site before the regular
firearm season. Capable Partners provides the blinds (about 20) and runs the schedule. A state
law and administrative rule allow the special hunt.

Stop 6: Handicapped duck blind, also provided by the Capable Partners program. The blind had
a handicapped accessible ramp to prevent wheel chairs from tipping into the waterfowl pool.

Carlos Avery WMA Site Notes
Mike Ferrucci and Robert Hrubes, Auditors

Stop 1 - Timber Sale B010312, Block 3: Completed overstory removal with reserves, releasing
established oak regeneration and creating oak and maple stump sprouts; portions of site had
burned at moderate to severe levels; excellent regeneration particularly burned sections; good
retention of standing live and dead trees and woody debris.

Stop 2 - Timber Sale B010312, Block 2: Completed overstory removal with reserves, releasing
established oak regeneration and creating oak and maple stump sprouts; site had burned at
moderate to severe levels; excellent regeneration; reserves were placed at perimeter of unit, still


                                                                                                 95
meets MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines for leave trees but auditors had concerns
about type/quality of leave trees.

Stop 3 - Timber Sale B011055, Block 1: Completed overstory removal with reserves, releasing
established oak regeneration and creating oak and maple stump sprouts; site had burned at
moderate to severe levels; excellent regeneration; reserve strategy was to leave White oak
species for resistance to oak wilt; barely meets MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines
for numbers of leave trees; concerns about type/quality of leave trees.

Stop 4 - Timber Sale B011055, Block 2: Sold but not harvested; overstory removal with
marked reserves mostly in clumps; marking done jointly by Eco-Waters and Wildlife Non-game
Specialist to illustrate closer fidelity to MFRC Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines for
type/quality of leave trees.

Stop 5 – Agricultural fields leased (excised from FSC acreage).




                                                                                          96
    Section C

SFI Reporting Form




                     97
                                                                                                Last updated: Oct 2010

Reporting Guidelines for a SFI 2010-2014 or CSA Z809 Certificate
CONTACT INFORMATION
 Certified Organization                                Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
    Organization Main Contact                          Rebecca Barnard
                                                                                               Zip/Postal
                  Street, No.                          500 Lafayette Road                                        55155-4044
    Address                                                                                    Code
                  City, State/Province                 Saint Paul, MN                           Country          USA
    Telephone                                          651-259-5256                            Fax               651-296-5954
                                                                                                                 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestr
    E-mail                                             Rebecca.Barnard@state.mn.us             Web
                                                                                                                 y/certification/index.html

CERTIFIED FOREST INFORMATION
                                                       SFI 2010-2014
Forest Certification achieved (mark
                                                       SFI 2010-2014 Section 2 only
one)
                                                       CSA Z809
    Forest area (to which certification                State/Province Minnesota           |          4,952,816 acres acres/hectares (circle one) 2
    applies) 1                                         State/Province              |                    acres/hectares (circle one)
    Is this same area certified to                     Yes/No (circle)
                                                                                               Land              100% public land
    another forest management                          If Yes, to which standard:
                                                                                               Ownership
    standard?                                             CSA       SFI      FSC

    Canada Only: What percentage of
                                                                                                                 (AAC to which certification applies.
    certified land is located in the                   %       Boreal                          AAC in m3 3
                                                                                                                 For private lands use annual average
    Boreal?                                                                                                      harvest)

DATA VERIFICATION

Certified Organization Representative
                                                                                                                  Date: 11/02/10
    I agree that the information listed above
    is accurate. Any changes will be                   Signature:
                                                                                                                        (mm/dd/yy)
    communicated to SFI Inc.
                                                       Name (Printed): Rebecca Barnard
                                                       Signature:
    Certification Body Representative
    I agree that the information listed above
                                                                                                                  Date: 12/02.10
    is accurate. Any changes will be
    communicated to SFI Inc.
                                                       Name (Printed):        Michael Ferrucci

CERTIFICATE INFORMATION (Certification Body Office Use Only)
 Certificate Number                                                                           CB Name          NSF-ISR
                                                                                              Certificate
    Certificate Issue Date                                     11.09.10                                        11.08.13
                                                                                              Expiry Date
                                                       Forest management on Minnesota DNR’s forestry lands, wildlife lands except for the
                                                       Prairie Province, Lake County fisheries lands, Scientific and Land Utilization Project
    Text in Scope Line of Certificate                  (LUP) lands, and related sustainable forestry activities covered by the SFI 2010-2014
                                                       Standard. Scientific and Natural Areas (SNAs) are excluded. The SFI Certificate
                                                       Number is NSF-SFIS-6Y921.
    # of Sites and Locations Certified
    CSA Only: Notification Fee collected                   Yes                                  No
    and paid to PEFC Canada


1
    Please refer to Principles on pages 2-3 on Reporting Guidelines
2
    Please list by State/Province if certificate covers forestland located in more than one state or province for accounting purposes. Add as required.
3
    Please refer to Principle 6 for AAC reporting guidelines
                                                                                                                                                          98
99

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:16
posted:9/4/2011
language:English
pages:101