1

Forest Management Public Summary

For

The Nature Conservancy

Certification Code: SW-FM/COC-238 Date of Certification: February 10, 2003 Date of Public Summary: First Version January 2003, Second Version January 2004, updated with audit information from 2003, updated for 2004, 2005 This document was produced according to the guidelines of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the SmartWood Program. No part of the report should be published separately. Certifier: SmartWood Program1 c/o Rainforest Alliance 665 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, New York 10012 U.S.A. TEL: (212) 677-1900 FAX: (212) 677-2187 Email: info@smartwood.org Website: www.smartwood.org To earn SmartWood certification, a forest management operation must undergo an on-site field assessment. This Public Summary Report summarizes information contained in the initial assessment report, which is produced based on information collected during the field assessment. Annual audits are conducted to monitor the forest management operation’s activities, to review the operation’s progress toward meeting their certification conditions, and to verify compliance with the SmartWood standards. Addenda providing the updated information obtained during these annual audits are included as attachments to the Public Summary Report.

1 SmartWood is coordinated by the Rainforest Alliance, an international nonprofit conservation organization. The Rainforest Alliance is the legally registered owner of the SmartWood certification mark and label. All uses of the SmartWood label for promotion must be authorized by SmartWood headquarters. SmartWood certification applies to forest management practices only and does not represent endorsement of other product qualities (e.g., financial performance to investors, product function, etc.). SmartWood is accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for the certification of natural forest management, tree plantations and chain of custody.

2

1. GENERAL SUMMARY

1.1 Name and Contact Information Source Name: The Nature Conservancy Contact Person: Fran Raymond Price Address: The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22203-1606 Tel: 703-841-7416 Fax: 703-841-7400 E-mail: fprice@tnc.org

1.2 General Background

A. Type of operation The Nature Conservancy has established a Certified Resource Manager (CRM) program to enable properties in which it is involved in forestland management to participate in Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. The Atlas Timberlands Partnership (ATP) was the first member of the CRM program, and the Upper St. John River (USJR) was the second member. The original (confidential) section four of this report focused specifically on the forest management of ATP as the initial member of TNC’s CRM program. The 2003 Expansion Audit Report for the USJR tract focused on the management of the USJR property and its potential inclusion in the TNC CRM Program. . The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of Vermont and the Vermont Land Trust (VLT) established the Atlas Timberlands Partnership (ATP) to purchase land from the Atlas Timber Company and manage the forest lands in private ownership. ATP is committed to actively manage the timber resource, protect and enhance biological resources, and maintain traditional public uses. The USJR tract is managed with the same philosophy, in collaboration with Huber Resources, and with the direct involvement of TNC of Maine.

B. Years in operation The CRM program was created in 2001. The ATP holdings were purchased on December 29, 1997. All the lands are contained within 23 parcels in 17 towns in northern Vermont. ATP has been managing the land for timber, biological resources, and public uses since the date of purchase. The USJR holdings were purchased by TNC in 1998. The management agreement with Huber Resources began July 1, 2000.

C. Date first certified February 10, 2003

D. Latitude and longitude of certified operation The approximate middle of the area containing ATP lands in north central Vermont is 44o, 48' N latitude, 72o, 35' W longitude. The approximate middle of the area containing USJR lands in northwestern Maine is 47o, 0' N latitude, 69o, 78' W longitude.

1.3 Forest and Management System

A. Forest type and land use history ATP Tract

3

ATP lands are typical for the hill- and mountain-side forests of north-central Vermont. In general, there is a preponderance of hardwoods, a dearth of softwoods, and modest amounts (generally <10%) of mixed forest types (Lapin and Engstrom 1999). Most of the forests are northern hardwoods dominated by the sugar maple-beech-yellow birch type, though sugar maple-white ash forests are abundant on richer sites. A montane yellow birch-red spruce type is commonly present at mid- to high-elevation, particularly at higher elevations where there was no or little selective harvesting of spruce over the past 200 years. A spruce-fir type can occur near mountain tops. Other forest types exist on the properties (e.g., red spruce-northern hardwood, hemlock-northern hardwood, white pine), but are limited in extent. European settlement of the area occurred nearly two centuries ago. There was limited use of the lands by Native Americans. Valley and select upland areas were cleared and plowed for crops. Some of the hillsides were cleared for pasturing. Sugar maple-dominated forests were often used for sugaring. Upper hillsides and mountain sides were not cleared for agriculture, but were likely partially cleared as pastures for cows and sheep, and were regularly, selectively cut over for various wood products. Much of the spruce was removed from the forest area over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The larger, high quality hardwoods were progressively removed over this period too. After farm abandonment, forest lands were owned by private industry. Recently, investment companies have grown in prominence in managing forest lands. In general, over this last one-half century, waves of exploitation have occurred across the forest, primarily in the form of diameter-limit cuts and high-grade removals of high-value hardwoods. Nearly every stand has received some form of timber harvest over the past 20 years. The ATP forest today is a mix of poorly- to moderately well-stocked stands of low to moderately abundant high quality growing stock. Current stand structures are mostly multi-aged, primarily two-aged, with some true even-aged. Stage of stand development is weighted towards the maturing (pole) size. Management practices by ATP over the past 3 years have been aimed at rehabilitating these degraded stands by conducting relatively light timber harvests aimed at regeneration using uneven-aged silviculture. Upper St. John River Tract The Upper St John River lands were purchased by TNC in December 1998 from International Paper Company and comprise 185,000 acres along 40 miles of the river. Since the time of purchase, TNC has consolidated their ownership along the St. John River and helped increase protection through fee and less-than-fee acquisitions that has increased protection to over 500,000 acres and 80 miles of river. Conservation easements apply to about 250,000 acres in the St. John River watershed. This area, situated in the Northern Appalachian/Acadian Ecoregion, is one of the largest undeveloped land-bases in the eastern U.S. and home to abundant wildlife and rare plants. The first surveys of the Upper St. John River did not occur until 1850. The first sales of townships in the area were to small partnerships of investors in 1853. By 1900, the availability of spruce sawtimber was beginning to wane; however, a pulpwood market was just beginning to emerge and large companies began buying large tracts of timberland. In 1910, the American Realty Company, part of International Paper Company, purchased 12 contiguous townships in the upper St. John River region. Although remote in its location, the Upper St. John River lands have been managed for more than 100 years for sawtimber and pulpwood. Until the end of the river drives over 40 years ago, wood was floated downstream to mills in New Brunswick. With the demise of the river drives an extensive network of gravel roads was built to access timber for management and harvest. This road system also provides access for recreation such as hunting, fishing, canoeing, and other traditional activities. The forest is comprised primarily of lowland spruce-fir, northern hardwood ridges, early and middle succession stages of forest development, and extensive areas of wetlands. The lowland spruce-fir forest covers about two-thirds of the TNC ownership and varies in composition from a mixture of red spruce/black spruce/hybridized red-black spruce with varying amounts of balsam fir present to pure stands of black spruce. The northern hardwood ridge species composition is various configurations of sugar maple/yellow birch/American beech with subcomponents of red spruce, balsam fir and white pine present in some stands. The area experienced heavy spruce budworm infestation and timber loss during the 1970s, and vast areas of the ownership were sprayed with pesticides and/or clearcut in an effort to salvage timber that was deemed at risk. The spruce stands that remain are a combination of

4

regenerating clearcuts and stands that survived the budworm infestation. A portion of the stands that were clearcut and regenerated were treated with herbicide and pre-commercially thinned to reduce overstocking.

B. Size of forest management unit certified and forest use and area in production forest, conservation, and/or restoration

Area Certified and Protected areas (ATP only):

Land Use Productive Forestland Non-productive Forestland Natural or Semi Natural Forest 10,001.4 ha (24,713 ac) 0

Plantation 9.3 ha (23 ac) 0 Protected area 348.2 ha (860 ac) 793.9 ha (1,961 ac)

Special Management Areas To be determined 0 Water 0 42.2 ha (104 ac)

Infrastructure 0 36.8 ha (91 ac) Other uses 0 0

Subtotal 10,358.9 ha (25,596 ac) 872.5 ha (2,155.9 ac) Total Certified Area 11,231.4 ha (27,751.9 acres)

Area Certified and Protected areas (USJR only):

Actual land use Area (acres) % Total Area Natural and semi natural forest 115,887 64.1% Forest plantations 150 .1% Protected areas 47,295 26.2% Special management areas 5,073 2.8% Water (open water bodies > 1 ha) 11,650 6.4% Infrastructure and other uses 661 .4 % Other 0 0

Total Certified Area 180,716 acres 100%

Area Certified and Protected areas (USJR and ATP combined):

Actual Land use Area (acres) % Total Area Natural or Semi Natural Forest 140,600 ac 67.4 % Plantation 173 ac .1 % Protected area 50,116 ac 24 % Special Management Areas 5,073 ac 2.4 % Water 11,754 ac 5.6 % Infrastructure 752 ac .4 % Other uses 0 0 Total Certified Area 208,468 acres 100%

C. Annual allowable cut and/or annual harvest covered by management plan ATP Tract Annual allowable cut (AAC) has been based on conservative and well-documented estimates of growth. Three different sources of information were used by ATP to derive estimates of growth: retrospective study using

5

increment cores, U.S. Forest Service inventories of local forests, and published growth and yield data. ATP concluded that 2.1-2.8 m3/ha (30-40 ft3/ac) per year was normal growth, and now uses a conservative growth estimate of 1.8 m3/ha (26 ft3/ac) per year as their AAC. The AAC is conservatively set, with plans for fine-tuning with more comprehensive data on growth and yield. USJR Tract The AAC for the Upper St. John River ownership was developed by modeling forest conditions and dynamics in a three-step process. The initial step used the ecological growth model FIBER to simulate stand level dynamics and generate yield curves. The second step involved using the generated yield curves in a forest dynamics model called Woodstock. Woodstock allows for optimizing maximum net revenue over long periods of time under a set of limitations including conservation, economic, and social priorities. The results of the model are then analyzed using a spreadsheet model. Different management alternatives may be explored by changing action and priority variables. Clearcutting was not a management option, harvest levels were not permitted to fluctuate more than 20% from year to year, and age class distributions were set to attain a desired future condition, i.e., for lowland spruce-fir: 20-50% of the area less than 75 years; 25-40% of the area 75-150 years; and 25-40% of the area older than 150 years: for hardwood ridges: 5-9% of the area less than 75 years; 4-8% of the area 75-150 years; and 83-91 % of the area older than 150 years. It will require a minimum of 130 years to reach these conditions. The only inventory data used in the models were from managed lands; data from reserves and buffers greater than 250 ft were omitted. The Woodstock model was not designed to grow trees to 150 years and older, and consequently, results for older stands were not reliable. A new forest growth model is being developed to better model growth in the 150+ year category. Growth rates modeled over the next 100 years were used to develop the AAC for the managed forest, which range from 0.25-0.35 cords/acre/year while total harvests range from 0.10-0.38 cords/acre/year.

D. General description of details and objectives of the management plan/system ATP Tract TNC has put in place a solid planning process and system for management of CRM group members. The ATP management plan represents the template for the CRM program. CRM will use a Gap Analysis tool to evaluate the quality of existing management plans for candidate group members, and to identify gaps that group members must fill prior to becoming part of the CRM pool. Management plans for all candidate CRM group members may not strictly follow the exact structure of the ATP management plan, but all the required elements will be put in place. ATP’s mission is to rehabilitate the exploited forests by shifting management objectives to ones that are more ecologically and economically sustainable than prior ownership standards by improving stand quality, productivity, and ecological integrity. The intent of management is to “produce high quality sawtimber while minimizing impacts on biological diversity and ecological integrity”. ATP’s goal is to “balance ecological, financial, and social values provided by the forest, while meeting the overarching conservation goals of the partnership parent organizations” (McMath and Turner 2002; Richford-Jay Lot Forest Management Plan). Primary ownership objectives are to (after McMath and Turner 2002; Richford-Jay Lot Forest Management Plan): maintain the biological diversity of the flora and fauna by protecting and maintaining special habitats and ecosystems, focusing on water quality and soil productivity, promoting diverse vertical structure, preserving biological legacies, establishing and maintaining no-harvest stream buffers, and encouraging a variety and abundance of plant species and habitats that are important to wildlife; employ silvicultural strategies that will result in the production of high-quality sawtimber and long-term profitability; use the land base to engage in and contribute to efforts to improve the region’s forest stewardship,biological diversity and integrity, and cultural and economic well-being; and, learn and share learning with others.

6

To achieve these objectives, ATP employs a forester and a modeler/technical support person to conduct forestry activities. The forester conducts all of the field inventories, marking, and supervision of contractors. Road work and timber harvesting are done by contract, under the close supervision of the forester. The forester and modeler work together on management planning and development of prescriptions. The modeler is responsible for much of the GIS work and growth and yield modeling. These two individuals work part-time (1-3 days per week) and are in close contact with the Atlas Steering Committee. Steering Committee members principally act as the landowners, though some members are regularly in the forest working with the forester in making land management decisions, or in local communities interacting with the forester and stakeholders. ATP has fully completed one management plan. It is set to guide work for 10 years, at which time it is to be fully updated. Revisions to the plan are to be made with each harvest operation and will include adjustments to stand boundaries, using GPS to map within stand features such as new skid trails and landings, and development of site-specific silvicultural prescriptions. The one finished plan followed closely, and subsequent management plans will follow closely, the protocol described in The Nature Conservancy’s “Forest Operations Manual”, as part of the TNC’s Conservation Forestry Program. These protocol adhere to the principles and criteria used by SmartWood and FSC in forest certification assessments. ATP exceeded FSC guidance in the full development of an ecological assessment of the lands as a basis for management planning. This assessment included on-site inventory of biological and geological resources, and a survey of the landscape context for all ATP lands. The core silvicultural system being used by ATP is uneven-aged via application of a hybrid group selection / patch approach. Cutting cycle length, given the cutting intensity demonstrated to-date, will be about 20 years. Some stands will be treated with even-aged systems, but only in context of eventual conversion to an uneven-aged state. Within stand features such as large living and dead trees (biological legacies) and no harvest protection zones along riparian and other water resource are woven into the operations of each stand. Roads and primary skid trails are located by the forester. Harvests are usually conducted during the winter when skid trails and haul roads can be frozen and erosion and sedimentation minimized. In a recent harvesting job forwarder machinery was used; log length chainsaw-skidder operations are also used. USJR Tract The management plan for the Upper St. John River lands was developed jointly by TNC and Huber Resources Corporation. In 2000, TNC entered a partnership with Huber in which Huber would manage most of TNC lands on the Upper St. John River area. The ownership is managed as one single management entity consisting of two primary management zones: 1) reserve forest and 2) managed forest. The reserve forest is permanently set aside from human intervention, and development will be shaped by natural processes. Only restoration, research, and low-impact recreation will be permitted in this area. The reserves will serve as ecological benchmarks, adequate habitats for viable populations of species whose requirements are unlikely to be met on managed lands, and sites for scientific research, long-term monitoring, and education. The reserves consist of landscape, intermediate, and local-scale areas that are imbedded within the managed forest matrix, thus contributing to the ecological reserve system envisioned in the Maine Forest Biodiversity Project. The managed forest zone will demonstrate that compatible forest management can be employed to meet economic and social forest needs while meeting conservation goals. Unlike other large landowners, TNC’s primary management objective is based upon conservation. TNC believes that a combination of protected reserves and managed forest will provide habitat for both specialized and less specialized species. Forests managed for forest products, but protecting critical elements of forest structure, will provide a valuable buffer to reserve areas and necessary resources and dispersal opportunities for species found within reserves. The managed forest zone occupies about 75% of the total TNC ownership. Huber is responsible for managing the forest in a silviculturally sound and sustainable manner and generating a reasonable economic return. TNC has provided certain guidelines that Huber must meet in their management activities. In order of priority, TNC has established the following goals for the managed forest zone:

7

Manage the forest in a long-term, sustainable manner that maintains or restores biological diversity while ensuring the integrity of the ecological reserves and water quality of the Upper St. John River and its tributaries, and meets FSC standards. Implement biodiversity friendly forest management techniques, documenting the successes and lessons learned, and demonstrating and sharing results in a variety of forums in order to promote biodiversity in managed forests. Respect traditional use of the area as a supply of wood and other forest products to local economies, and as an opportunity for recreation by the public when compatible with conservation objectives. Use income generated from sustainable production of forest products to pay costs associated with owning and managing the property, as well as fund additional conservation work in Maine. Silvicultural practices that embrace natural forest dynamics will be practiced on the TNC lands. A key component of natural dynamics silviculture is consistency with natural disturbance regimes in the region. TNC silviculture will attempt to emulate these natural disturbance patterns of the native forest. Silvicultural treatments will be applied that are consistent with natural disturbances found in lowland spruce-fir areas and hardwood ridges. Shelterwood systems will be used to mimic larger scale disturbances such as wind events, insect infestations, and fire. Since clearcutting was employed extensively in the past on the ownership, it will not be used in the foreseeable future. Small group selections will be employed to develop multi-age forests, in particular within pure and mixed tolerant hardwood stands. TNC will conduct thinnings on stands to favor growth on residual trees. Non-commercial thinnings may be undertaken in selected incidences; however, pre-commercial; thinning of young developing spruce-fir is not planned since it provides little value to ecological or biodiversity goals. TNC has developed specific goals for the future condition of the forest with regard to landscape distribution of stands and the age-class distribution of the forest. Based upon the current condition of the forest and the desired age-class distribution, these goals will require at least 130 years to achieve. In order to monitor success toward desired conditions of the forest, TNC has selected two wildlife habitat conservation targets for the region: American pine marten and Canada lynx. TNC has established a goal of maintaining an average of five marten habitat units per township and adequate food sources for a viable population of lynx. TNC is also monitoring stand type and age class distributions within both major forest types. This landscape-level monitoring occurs every five years. In addition, stand level parameters have been established for structural diversity, riparian and wetland considerations, and stand-level monitoring. A complete forest inventory of the upper St. John River ownership was conducted in the summer of 2002. The inventory data are used to conduct forest growth modeling and to determine the AAC. Beginning in 2004, Huber foresters will sample one-fifth of the managed forest to maintain an “evergreen” inventory process. A five-year harvest plan is in place that directs all future harvesting activities.

1.4 Environmental and Socioeconomic Context Regional Environmental Context: ATP Tract Many of ATP parcels are clustered within 9 towns in north central Vermont, the remaining ones are scattered across northeastern and north central Vermont (Fig. 1 from ATP): all lie within a 60 by 40 mile area. Most of ATP lands are in the northern third of the Northern Green Mountains biophysical region in the New England-Adirondack province of the U. S. Forest ecological classification map. Forest lands owned and managed by ATP lie within a mosaic of second-growth northern hardwood forest and agricultural lands dominated by pastures for dairy cows and crop fields dedicated to forage for the cows (alfalfa and native grass hay and corn silage). Prior agricultural clearings (more pasture than cultivated crop land) resulted in the current second, and in some places, third-growth forest with only remnant pockets of older maturing forest. Dominant tree species are representative of the northern hardwood type (American beech, sugar maple, hemlock, and yellow birch, with red maple, white pine, white birch, and red spruce as minority species). Some of the forest lands surrounding ATP lands are in private ownership and some have been aggressively harvested with little regard for conservation of natural resources. On some of these lands skid trails are nearly vertical, steep and eroded, stream crossings are located and built with little regard for protection of riparian resources, and riparian zones afforded no special consideration regarding protection of water

8

quality/temperature in streams/wetlands. The forests have been repeatedly mined for the most economically valuable trees, resulting in reduced species composition and quality of remaining trees. Lands in the mix adjoining or close to ATP forest lands include large private holdings for investment firms, college trust lands, state forests, and forestlands owned by local mills (Bell-Gates and Green Crow). ATP holdings are sufficiently far north in Vermont that subdivisions of forest lands for smaller, vacation homes for absentee landowners, while present, are not as common as in southern Vermont. ATP tracts are located within a mix of landforms, including the Northern Vermont Piedmont with low rounded summits with short side slopes, the Northern Green Mountains with steep upper and toe slopes, and the Northeastern Highlands with low rounded summits in larger, less linear patches. Overall, the area is characterized by low, rounded summits with steep side slopes in some places, and with well-developed steep upper toe slopes in others. The overall impression is of mountain tops and broad valleys; ATP lands generally occur at the higher and steeper elevations. Recent glacier activity resulted in young soils with many forest sites rich in nutrients with diverse understories of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species. Forest lands provide water sources as small watersheds, serving small and isolated municipalities: there are no large metropolitan-serving watersheds. The area is sufficiently far north that white-tailed deer move to yarding areas in severe winters; deer populations are growing but still below densities that result in serious and widespread degradation of species composition and structure of forest vegetation. Moose are beginning to repopulate this part of northern Vermont, and sightings are becoming increasingly common. The area does not harbor either federal or state threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) vertebrate species, but there are a few rare plants and uncommon (natural) plant communities. There are no discernable biodiversity or wildlife issues/concerns. USJR Tract The USJR watershed is the home to some of the highest concentrations of rare plant species in Maine, provides habitat for mammals such as pine marten, lynx, black bear, and moose. The area is considered important from a conservation perspective due to its connection with broader areas that are lynx, pine marten, and moose habitat. The rivers and streams provide both habitat for native brook trout and several species of rare dragonflies, and a setting for remote recreation by canoeists, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts. As there is only a very small permanent human population in the region (associated with timber industry, recreation and customs control), this is a relatively wild and very scenic area. The Maine Rivers Study gave the St. John River the highest rating for remote recreation in the state. Recreation pressures exist, but they are not great, thanks to the relatively remote locations. TNC owns approximately 40 lineal miles of the St. John River riverfront and approximately 180,000 acres of forest land in basically two large contiguous blocks. Socioeconomic Context: ATP Tract The part of northern Vermont wherein ATP lands are located is sparsely populated with small, isolated towns, scattered farms, and large recreational areas with seasonal activities (downhill and cross-country skiing, hiking, snowmobiling, hunting and fishing). Small state highways connect the isolated communities. Local economies and workforces are heavily dependent on use of natural resources, and most jobs are related to timber harvest and management, agriculture, construction, and recreation. A once viable wood products industry (primarily furniture construction) is slowly dying, and with it the dependent small towns and communities (Fig. 3). Excepting the scattered ski resort communities, the area is somewhat impoverished with fairly high unemployment. Most jobs are related to timber harvest and management, agriculture, construction, and services for the burgeoning recreational industry. Commercial forestry is divided between opportunistic extraction of wood products on private lands, management for sustained production of wood products on state lands, and conservation or preservation of forest resources on reserved lands. There are no Native American tribes with legal standing in northern Vermont, but claims for tribal lands are pending (none on ATP lands). TNC has camp lease agreements with 28 different parties, and also collaborates with other recreational groups such as conservation organizations, volunteer organizations, and hunters. There are no regional land or resource use claims or conflicts.

9

USJR Tract The USJR tract is located along the northwestern border of Maine with Quebec. There are no major communities within the actual forest area, though there are a couple of small assemblages of buildings, mostly logging camps or offices (e.g. TNC/Huber offices in Daquaam). The local land use on the USA side of the border is all devoted to commercial forest management and recreation. Across the border in Quebec there is also forest management and recreation, but also farms and various communities. All roads within Maine in this area are gravel, and control and use of the access is managed by North Maine Woods, a private non-profit organization established to manage recreation and access in the region. TNC is an active member of North Maine Woods. There are no Native American tribes associated with the USJR tract, though there are archaeological artifacts of their presence found along the USJR. All jobs in the region are related to forestry, recreation, or border control (e.g. U.S. Customs). There are no regional land claims or conflicts. The companies operating in the region cooperate on road maintenance, safety and other community issues.

1.5 Products Produced and Chain of Custody

A. Chain of custody certificate The CRM Program will produce logs for sale to various parties. There are no plans to develop processing plants at this point in time. Thus, the CRM Program’s COC control is up to the point where the logs leave the forest, or when trucks are contracted by the program for delivery, the delivery point at the point of sale, e.g. sawmill or processing site log yard.

B. Species and volumes covered by the certificate The CRM Program’s first property, ATP, is primarily a northern hardwoods forest. Historically, there was a higher component of softwood. The second property, USJR, is a combination of mixed northern hardwoods and softwoods. New properties may be located in other forest types, states and regions. Thus, the list provided below is illustrative, not definitive, for each forest. Table 1: Certified Production from ATP

Species Scientific name Volume (m3 per yr) Product Red spruce Sugar maple Yellow birch White birch Beech

Picea rubens Acer saccharum Larix laricina Betula papyrifera Fagus grandifolia

Sawlogs 1,255,567board feet (approx 5,000 cubic meters) Pulp (green tons) 160.05 Firewood 1,715.99 cords or approx 858 cubic meters)

Logs only

Table 2: Certified Production from USJR

Species Scientific name Volume (m3 per yr) Product Balsam fir Red spruce Sugar maple Yellow birch White birch White pine

Abies balsamifera Picea rubens Acer saccharum Larix laricina Betula papyrifera Pinus alba Populus spp. Picea mariana Fagus grandifolia Tsuga canadensis Thuja occidentalis

Sawlogs 29,320 cords (approx 56,651 cubic meters) Pulp 10,603 cords or approx 20,487cubic meters)

Logs only

10

C. Description of current and planned processing capacity covered by the certificate No processing is conducted by the CRM Program. If there are any changes, the CRM Director will need to inform SmartWood for consideration during future audits. 2.0 CERTIFICATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS

2.1 Assessment Dates ATP Tract Process May 18, 2002 Stakeholder public notices distribution starts (email and mail) June 6, 2002 Conference call among team members to initiate assessment planning June 16, 2002 Organizational meeting among team members prior to assessment June 17- 20, 2002 Field assessment at Atlas Timberlands Partnership June 21, 2002 Begin report write-up and continue stakeholder interactions (emails & interviews) August 19, 2002 Draft report to ATP/TNC for initial review & fact-checking/comment October 3, 2002 Comments received from ATP/TNC October 10, 2002 Draft report to peer reviewers and SmartWood headquarters October 28, 2002 Comment back from peer reviewers December 30, 2002 Final draft submitted to SW Certification Committee Certification Contract signed and received by SmartWood USJR Tract Process August 21, 2002 Stakeholder public notice for audit Sept. 7-11, 2002 Field assessment at USJR November 5, 2002 Draft report to USJR/TNC for initial review & fact-checking January 30, 2004 Report finalized.

2.2 Assessment Team and Peer Reviewers ATP Assessment Team David S. deCalesta. Team Leader, Wildlife Biologist, Ph.D., M.S. in Wildlife Ecology Colorado State University, B.S. Psychology, Dartmouth College. Adjunct professor of forestry and wildlife at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry-Syracuse, and a wildlife consultant (Wildlife Analysis PC) (both 2 years, current). Prior experience as research wildlife biologist with the Forest Service’s Northeastern Forest Experiment Station (1988-2001), and professor and extension wildlife specialist in forest science and wildlife ecology North Carolina State University and Oregon State University (1973-1988). He completed the SmartWood Team Leader Training Course in June, 2002 and has participated in 6 SmartWood forest certification assessments. Richard Z. Donovan. CRM Assessor, MS in natural resources management, 27 years international experience in forestry, environmental impact assessment and community development. Richard is the Chief of Forestry at Rainforest Alliance and has participated in more than 50 SmartWood scopings, assessments and audits worldwide, starting in March 1992. Richard’s specializations are in forest auditing, watershed management, logging, community forestry, and general forest conservation. Richard was the SmartWood Director for 10 years, before assuming his current position approximately one year ago. Prior to that he spent four years as a Senior Fellow for World Wildlife Fund USA, running a field tropical forest conservation and management program in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica, seven years as a natural resources management consultant with ARD, Inc. (a private consulting firm), and three years as a Peace Corps volunteer in Paraguay, South America. He also worked for 3 years as a logger (i.e. tree feller). Christopher A. Nowak. Forester/Silviculturist. Ph.D., M.S., and B.S. in Forest Resources Management from SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry-Syracuse, A.A.S. in Forest Technology from SUNY College

11

of Environmental Science and Forestry-Wanakena. Work Experience: Associate Professor of Forestry at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry-Syracuse (4 years, current); 5½ years as a Research Forester at U.S. Forest Services Forest Sciences Laboratory in Irvine, PA; 6 years as a Research Scientist with Research Foundation of SUNY, Syracuse, NY. Forest certification assessment experience: peer reviewer, team member (forester, silviculturist), and team leader for a total of 10 assessments since 1997. Deanna Newsom. Social Assessor, MS in Forest Policy. Program Associate for the Rainforest Alliance TREES Program based in Richmond, VT. Masters research included an examination of the levels of support given by forest owners to competing certification programs in the US, Canada and Germany, as well as a study of the attitudes of small landowners toward certification in the southern U.S.. She worked as a wildlife biologist for four years in western Canada (1995-1999) prior to her Masters work. She completed the SmartWood Assessor's Training Course in February 2002, and was an observer on a SmartWood assessment in Western Canada in 2001. Peer Reviewers • William Leak, M.F., Research Forester. • Tom Wessels, M.A. Ecologist. USJR Audit Team Richard Z. Donovan. Team leader (qualifications described above); Andrew Whitman. Forest Ecologist, B.A. Biology, Earlham College; M.S. Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine. Worked as tropical forest ecologist for 3 years conducting research on impacts of traditional and alternative timber harvesting on birds, butterflies, forest structure, and tree demography and regeneration in Belize (1993-95). Subsequently worked throughout Maine (1996 – 2003) conducting research on forest management and leading workshops on research results for foresters, managers, policymakers, and stakeholders. Studies have focused on forest management tools for biodiversity, including structural retention, and tools for biodiversity assessment and monitoring (including indicators). Has studied birds, vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, fungi, lichens, ground beetles, microclimate, and forest structure in northern hardwoods, spruce-fir, oak-pine, and northern pine forest types. Completed the SmartWood Assessor's Training Course in February 1997. Peer reviewer for a SmartWood assessment in northeast United States 2003. Michael Cline. Forester, his B.S. in Biology, M.S. and Ph.D. in Forest Biology. Dr. Cline has been involved in forest research, management, and policy for more than 25 years at a variety of locations throughout the U.S. He conducted research for International Paper Co. for seven years, research and policy analysis for Maine Audubon Society for 10 years, was a forestry consultant and taught college courses for three years, and has been the director of Tin Mountain Conservation Center for the past five years. In addition, he has operated a forest management business for the past 13 years. He has worked as a forest auditor on various SmartWood audits in the northeastern USA.

2.3 Assessment Process ATP Assessment Process A public briefing paper was distributed one month prior to fieldwork to a stakeholder group identified by The Nature Conservancy, Atlas Timberlands Partnership and the assessment team. The assessment team had several pre-assessment communications to prepare themselves for the assessment and be able to most efficiently use their time in the field. They reviewed documents from CRM and ATP describing the CRM structure, goals, policies, and requirements –as well as specific planning documents and information on the ATP properties and management activities. The field work began on June 17 with a presentation by TNC CRM staff and ATP to the assessment team, and field visits that afternoon. Field visits continued through June 20. All parcels were visited where there had been harvesting and silvicultural activity by the CRM/ATP since the inception of ATP (1999). Sites visited range from a

12

46 acre parcel (the second smallest parcel in ATP) to a 2,811 acre parcel (the second largest parcel in ATP). The field work ended with a debriefing presentation to the CRM/ATP team by the assessment team. The team performed several follow up calls with stakeholders to this assessment process. A draft report was written by the assessment team detailing CRM/ATP’s performance against each of the criterion in the standards. This draft report was presented to CRM/ATP and they provided comments to the assessment team regarding changes that they felt would improve the report’s accuracy. Two independent peer reviewers reviewed the report, and provided their comments to SmartWood. The team considered the peer reviewers and CRM/ATP’s comments, and made changes that were appropriate and supported by their field visit and follow-up conversations with CRM/ATP and stakeholders. The final report was sent to SmartWood for their review and certification decision. Table 2 Summary of ATP Forest Areas & Areas Visited by SmartWood Assessors

Forest/Block Name

Area (Hectares)

Assessment Site

Caledonia/Groton*-Groton/Plain/Orange 362.8 yes Caledonia/Hardwick-Girl Scout/Hardwick 32.4 yes Franklin/Bakersfield-Cold Hollow 859.1 no Franklin/Montgomery-Burnt 2,203.2 no Franklin/Montgomery-Gibou 932.7 no Franklin/Richford-Richford/Jay 1,138.2 yes Lamoille/Belvidere-Burnt 20.2 no Lamoille/Belvidere-Tri 99.6 no Lamoille/Belvidere-Gibou 148.6 no Lamoille/Belvidere-Bogs/Perkins 253.4 no Lamoille/Eden-Square Lot 636.8 yes Lamoille/Eden-Bogs 205.7 no Lamoille/Eden-Outlook 21.7 no Lamoille/Eden-Burnt 220.6 no Lamoille/Eden-Eden/Craftsbury 471.5 no Lamoille/Elmore-Elmore Lake 829.4 no Lamoille/Wolcott-Girl Scout 42.9 yes Lamoille/Wolcott-Wolcott 18.4 yes Lamoille/Wolcott-Girl Scout/Hardwick 119.6 yes Orange/Orange-Groton/Plain/Orange 42.5 no Orleans/Craftsbury-Eden/Craftsbury 353.0 no Orleans/Jay-Richford-Jay 801.4 yes Orleans/Lowell-Haystack East 406.1 no Orleans/Lowell-Eden Notch 175.7 no Orleans/Lowell-Burnt 34.8 no Orleans/Lowell-Tillotson East 46.6 no Orleans/Westfield-Westfield 75.3 no Orleans/Westfield-Hazen’s Notch 4.1 no Orleans/Westmore-Westmore 205.1 no Orleans/Westmore-Westmore 50.2 no Washington/Plainfield-Groton/Plain/Orange 150.6 yes TOTALS 10,962.2

• First and second names in Forest/Block column are the county and town, respectively, of location for the parcel.

USJR Expansion Audit Process

13

Prior to assessment, SmartWood and TNC distributed a public notice that the expansion audit was occurring. This was distributed to approximately 200 stakeholders, including staff, contractors, environmental organizations, state and local agencies, and other interested parties. Once on site, the auditors spent time at both the TNC/Maine and Huber Resources headquarters offices, reviewing records and discussing forest management systems. Site Visits: The team conducted intensive site visits during a 3 day field period, covering all townships where USJR management occurs. Forest blocks at USJR are identified by Township and Range numbers, with a stand type identified for each stand. The team visited 15 different forest blocks and activity sites (on and off roads). Of particular note is that two post-harvest sites were visited that the ecologist on the audit team had previously visited in the course of conducting research (unrelated to the audit), providing very useful before-and-after harvest data over a period of time that significantly transcends the audit timeframe.

Table 3. Summary of USJR Forest Areas & Areas Visited by SmartWood Assessors

Township Stand Type Type of Site T8R18 S3A (CE-BF-RS reserve) 40-60 yr old clearcut T8R17 SH2A (jack pine plantation) 15-20 yr old silvicultural clearcut T8R17 TH3B (SM) 4 yr old partial harvest (mechanized) T8R17 TH3A (SM) 20-30 yr old partial cut T9R17 SH3B (RS-BF-YB) 1 yr old partial cut (cut-to-length system) T12R16 SH2B 1 yr old Overstory Removal T10R16 SH1A (BF-BS-CE) 2 yr old Overstory Removal T10R16 S3B (BS-BF) 1 yr old partial cut (cut-to-length), (previously

viewed by SmartWood auditor before harvest in 2002)

T10R16 SH2B (BS-BF-WB) 1 yr old OSR T10R16 S3B (BS-BF) 1 yr old partial cut (cut-to-length), (previously

viewed by SmartWood auditor before harvest in 2002)

T11R17 ROAD Re-working T11R17 ROAD New arched culvert T11R17 ROAD Old arched culvert T11R16 S3B, ROAD 1 yr old partial cut (cut-to-length) T11R16 S3B 3yr old partial cut (cut-to-length) T11R16 S2D, ROAD Upland heath and winter road w/ pulled culvert T11R16 SH3C 1 yr old partial cut(feller buncher), near camp

2.4 Standards The Nature Conservancy’s certification assessment was conducted using the National Review Draft: Forest Certification Standards for New England and New York, developed by the Northeast Region FSC Working Group, April 2001. The same standards, with minor modifications, and now endorsed by FSC International, were used for assessing the USJR tract in Maine. To obtain a copy of these guidelines contact SmartWood at the Goodwin Baker Building, 65 Millet St., suite 201, Richmond, VT 05477, tel: (802) 434-5491, fax: (802) 434-3116, or Email: info@smartwood.org

2.5 Stakeholder consultation process and results

Issues Identified Through Stakeholder Comments

14

The stakeholder consultation activities were organized to give participants the opportunity to provide comments according to general categories of interest based upon the assessment criteria. The table below summarizes the issues identified by the ATP assessment team and USJR expansion audit team, with a brief discussion of each based upon specific interview and/or public meeting comments.

Table 3: Stakeholder Comments FSC Principle Stakeholder Comments SmartWood Response P1: FSC Commitment/ Legal Compliance

ATP Land manager discussed ATP’s impending SmartWood assessment with its log buyers.

ATP No illegal dumping was observed during the ecological inventory, although some abandoned trailers were left on the landings of the Cold Hollow site.

ATP Prohibition on ATV use is not enforced ATP Illegal activities on land include two deer camps and ATVs USJR - TNC & Huber both seen as very responsible managers for the Upper St. John’s River property. Some stakeholders inquired whether Huber would seek FSC certification on other properties it manages.

Supports the team’s findings in criterion 1.6 Supports the team’s findings in criterion 1.5. Supports the team’s findings in criterion 1.5. See condition 1. Supports the team’s findings in criterion 1.5 No comment, except that Huber indicated it would pursue FSC certification for particular forest areas depending on the landowner’s desires and market conditions.

P2: Tenure & Use Rights & Responsibilities

ATP Line of red blazes separates ATP land from neighbor. He was notified of harvest activities in advance. USJR No concerns or issues raised.

Supports the team’s findings in criterion 2.1 No comment necessary

P3 – Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

ATP & USJR - None. Not necessary.

P4: Community Relations & Workers’ Rights

ATP & USJR - Wages for woods (?) workers are competitive. ATP & USJR - Very cooperative and honest business partners. ATP - Worked for ATP as a logger and later milled wood for them – good employer, honest, takes job seriously, wage in line with going rate. Wants to see wood stay in the local area. Land manager asked to see liability insurance and workers compensation docs.

Supports the team’s findings in criterion 4.1 Supports the team’s findings in criterion 4.1. Supports the team’s findings in criterion 4.1

P5: Benefits from the Forest

ATP & USJR - None. Not necessary.

P6: Environmental Impact

ATP - Threatened and endangered species were not explicitly discussed during ATP’s biological inventory.

ATP has contacted state experts and used its consultants to determine the potential for, as well as search for, unique, vulnerable, rare, and

15

ATP - Encouraged by ATP’s hiring of consultants to conduct an ecological inventory of the Atlas lands in 1998 to identify sensitive areas and protect rare and endangered species. ATP - Certain high elevation, very rich sites were found that were logged heavily by previous owner. Suggests that some of these be turned into set-asides. ATP - Previous owner used many haphazard skid trails – ATP needs to create new policy regarding skid trails. USJR – No comments

threatened communities and sensitive (state listed), rare, threatened, and endangered (federally listed) species and their habitats, and has identified rare, uncommon, and common plants and plant communities for each of its tracts. ATP’s policy is to identify and reserve from management activities areas containing uncommon plants or sensitive habitats. This supports team’s observations in the field. ATP chose to use and develop protective measures for existing skid trails rather than create additional disturbance and opportunity for erosion and soil degradation by building new skid trails. They have identified a number of practices designed to reduce logging/skidding damages. None necessary.

P7: Management Plan ATP - Land manager takes the time to review the job before work begins and make sure that contractors understand the goals of the project. USJR – Not sure that the TNC management “model” will prove viable on other large commercial properties in Maine.

Supports the team’s findings in criterion 7.3. TNC accepts that its management goals and objectives are different from others, but also hopes that some of its techniques might prove replicable.

P8: Monitoring & Assessment

ATP – It should make a commitment to have monitoring plots resampled regularly, and also create some reference stands. ATP & USJR - Impressed with commitment to long-term monitoring of the environmental impacts of management.

ATP plans to sample 15 hidden fixed area plots every 5 to 10 years. Forest-level monitoring occurs every decade for growth rates, regeneration and condition of the forest. See condition 6. No comment necessary.

P9: Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forest

None. Not necessary.

P10 - Plantations None. Not necessary. Certified Resource Manager

ATP & USJR - Concern that too much oversight responsibility was being transferred to TNC from SmartWood through the CRM approach.

The CRM program does assign significant oversight responsibilities to TNC as with all RM certifications, but requires that monitoring and management expectations are met in order to operate and grow a resource manager program. SmartWood will audit the TNC CRM program annually to assure that oversight responsibilities are met.

16

17

3.0 RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 General Discussion of Findings Table 4: Findings by FSC Principle

Principle/Subject Area

Strengths Weaknesses

P1: FSC Commitment and Legal Compliance

ATP & USJR - CRM staff demonstrated a long-term commitment to FSC principles and criteria and compliance with federal, state, local laws. Taxes paid on time.

At ATP, inactive sites did not have clear boundary markings. There are also some problems with use by ATVs and damage to existing skid and haul roads. There were no weaknesses for USJR.

P2: Tenure & Use Rights & Responsibilities

ATP & USJR – There are clear title/deeds for all lands. Land boundaries are marked and identified prior to management activities. ATP & USJR is able to resolve disputes informally.

None for either ATP or USJR.

P3 – Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

ATP - Native Americans have no legal standing in Vermont; there are no disputes or claims pending with ATP lands. USJR – Though Native Americans have different standing in Maine, there are no issues for this tract.

None for either ATP or USJR. None

P4: Community Relations & Workers’ Rights

Both ATP & USJR appear to have excellent rapport with local communities and are sensitive and responsive to local ecological, sociological, and economic conditions and works with local communities in educational efforts.

None for either ATP or USJR.

P5: Benefits from the Forest

ATP & USJR – TNC (from top administrators to field personnel) is highly and visibly committed to local economic viability and active in seeking additional local markets and new uses for wood products. TNC seeks highest and best use for individual trees and species and gives business to local mills. Forest uses are balanced and public access is promoted. Provision of ecosystem services (clean water, biodiversity) is actively pursued. Biological diversity is considered, provided, and enhanced, especially in the area of enhancing legacies (snags and logs). Annual allowable cut is based on conservative and documented estimates of growth and yield.

None for either ATP or USJR.

P6: Environmental Impact

ATP & USJR - An area of great strength. Conducted comprehensive and thorough evaluation of ecological condition/resources, identified and mapped sensitive habitats, plant communities at stand and landscape scales. Made the best of inherited problems with skid trails and stream crossings. Developed comprehensive protections for riparian resources, actively promotes retention, creation of legacies. Seeks to maintain, improve connectivity with landscape corridors, areas of HCF values within local

ATP - Proposed guidelines for coarse woody debris (CWD), buffers for wetlands and vernal pools are tentative and not consistently employed. ATP - Solution to the problem of streams (being so close to one another on some tracts that management options for harvest, skidding, and riparian protection are almost precluded) is not resolved.

18

landscapes. Emulates natural disturbance patterns in silvicultural prescriptions and enhances natural disturbance regime in creating small patches of early successional habitat, successional stages, species composition, and vertical structures for habitat.

P7: Management Plan ATP team members actively engage the public and other professionals to revise thinking and practice of forest management through a sustained and comprehensive effort utilizing literature, workshops, professional meetings, and working groups. A similar approach is starting at USJR, involving both TNC and Huber staff, and informal interaction with other parties throughout the region. At USJR, TNC has been particularly proactive in conducting planning activities and assessments related biological values on the forest tract.

ATP - The process of management planning is not fully developed, including connection of management to CRM monitoring. At ATP, the annual operation plans for harvest and roads are not developed consistent with CRM Policy document.

P8: Monitoring & Assessment

At ATP, TNC has developed two monitoring programs – one for a forest wide inventory of timber and non-timber resources and one for ecosystem attributes at the stand level. Sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants are inventoried. ATP can track each forest product from origin to mill. At USJR, a detailed stand level monitoring process, considering pre- and post-harvest conditions, is planned. TNC is still testing it, but it shows potential as an extremely valuable management tool.

At ATP, the status of advance regeneration within stands is described using a Bio-Timber Inventory program, but it is not clear if the results are used to determine adequacy of regeneration or if additional inventories are planned after the initial one (monitoring). At USJR, it is not clear how monitoring information will be used, in practice, to inform or improve management. The monitoring activities have only just begun and as such are not fully tested.

P9: Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forest

On both ATP and USJR, TNC conducted an environmental assessment of its forestlands and identified and mapped areas with unique or uncommon features/species/communities at the stand level. On USJR in particular, there is a high percentage of forestland devoted to strict conservation, and there will be even more in the future. At the landscape level at ATP, TNC conducted an assessment of how its forestlands contribute to landscape connectivity, corridors, and biological diversity. At USJR, landscape level conservation assessments have provided the basis for decisions on where to establish strict protection and harvesting areas, respectively. On both ATP and USJR, TNC is dedicated to providing ecological services to local communities as well as contributing to local economies.

At both USJR and ATP, the monitoring that occurs of HCVF attributes is not annual, though other types of monitoring (and related research) are happening.

P10 - Plantations At ATP, on its miniscule plantation holdings (less than 1/10 of one percent), TNC manages to eventually revert them to a natural forest. ATP manages to enhance CWD on the forest floor. ATP has neither planted nor plans for planting of plantations. TNC is basically taking the same approach on

None for either ATP or USJR.

19

USJR as it is on ATP. There is a miniscule amount of plantation area, and even in this case TNC is considering converting it back to natural forest.

3.2 Certification Decision Based on a thorough field review, analysis and compilation of findings by this SmartWood assessment team The Nature Conservancy’s Certified Resource Manager (CRM) program is recommended to receive joint FSC/SmartWood Forest Management and Chain of Custody (FM/COC) Certification with the stipulated conditions. In 2003, the USJR tract is recommended to be added to the CRM Program by SmartWood auditors. In order to maintain certification, TNC’s CRM is to be audited annually on-site and required to remain in compliance with the FSC principles and criteria as further defined by regional guidelines developed by SmartWood or the FSC. The TNC CRM will also be required to fulfil the conditions as described below. Experts from SmartWood will review continued forest management performance and compliance with the conditions described in this report, annually during scheduled and random audits.

3.3 Conditions and Recommendations Conditions are verifiable actions that will form part of the certification agreement that TNC CRM/ATP will be expected to fulfill at the time of the first audit or as required in the condition. Each condition has an explicit time period for completion. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) are aspects of the TNC management that must improve, based on the findings of SmartWood audits. Non-compliance with conditions or CARs will lead to either suspension or termination of certification. Conditions – Original Assessment of TNC 2003 (Atlas Timber Partnership lands): Condition 1: Within one year of certification, CRM/ATP shall develop a strategic plan for posting and controlling access on forestlands, including a schedule for boundary marking of all properties. Marking of properties should include: a) sign and post against trespass at the access points with permanent type markers (fabric/metal signs); and b) identify property boundaries in a traditional and less detailed manner (e.g. painted blazes). Progress on posting and access control will be audited each year. (Criterion 1.5) Condition 2: Within one year of certification, CRM/ATP shall post access points with signs prohibiting/controlling ATV use (access roads leading into property, well-used illegal trails leading onto property). (Criterion 1.5) Condition 3: Within one year of certification, CRM/ATP shall apply its proposed guidelines for coarse, woody debris and include quantitative guidelines for coarse, woody debris in new management plans. Application of such guidelines may be modified in the future to relate to more comprehensive science. (Criterion 6.3) Condition 4: Within one year of certification, CRM/ATP shall complete evaluation of its proposed buffers for wetlands, including vernal pools, and include in new management plans specific, quantitative guidelines for protecting such wetlands. Included in the guidelines will be specific reference to resolution of the situation (described in finding 6.5) wherein permanent streams are less than 100’ apart and placing buffer zones about these streams would essentially prohibit all timber harvest on such sites. Within three years of certification, ATP shall include in existing management plans specific, quantitative guidelines for protecting such wetlands. (Criterion 6.5) Condition 5: Within two years of certification, the process of management planning shall be more fully developed and expressed by completing new forest management plans for at least 25 percent of the managed acreage (only those properties that are scheduled for management activities during the next 5 years), with plans to be developed for 25 percent more acreage coverage for each of the three successive years. This means that by the 5th year of certification, all of the actively managed ATP lands will have fully documented and functioning forest management plans. These plans will include all aspects of those detailed in the Richford-Jay template. In addition, the following elements must be added to the plans: a written statement connecting the document to the CRM, a specific schedule of general management (e.g., harvesting, road building) and monitoring activities, and more refined, stand-level

20

maps that show important within stand features (e.g., skids trails, riparian areas, vernal pools, cultural sites, etc.). Such additions to maps shall be made as stands are revisited for some reason, and records of such activities (and map upgrades) shall be kept. At least 5 such maps shall be made annually, with maps for all managed properties being made by the next certification assessment. (Criterion 7.1) Condition 6: Within one year of certification, annual operation plans (harvest, road) shall be developed for all ATP properties in a manner described in the CRM Policy document. Harvest plans will include (per CRM policy): written description of operating areas, map of operating areas, stand types, proposed prescriptions, harvesting methods, season of harvest, and site-specific concerns and constraints (per CRM policy). Road plans will include (per CRM policy): proposed access road construction or road upgrading/maintenance, proposed water crossing locations, and any bridge construction. Such plans shall be required of CRM future members. (Criterion 7.1). Condition 7: Within one year of certification, a system shall be developed and applied to monitor regeneration. At a minimum, qualitative means should be used and documented across all stands at various points in time after harvest, and a rigorous, intensive, quantitative approach should be applied to a subset of stands to specifically garner information on regeneration success and failures, in a cause-and-effect, research mode. Given ATP’s preference for group and patch openings in association with uneven-aged silviculture, specific foci should be applied to the development of regeneration in groups and patches. (Criterion 8.2) Condition 8: Within one year of certification, CRM/ATP shall produce as part of its management plan template a monitoring plan for areas containing identified HCVF attributes. Such plan shall describe how lands containing HCVF attributes are screened to determine whether they might receive management activities, and if so how the screening is implemented to prevent impact on HCVF attributes. The plan shall include monitoring of lands abutting areas with identified HCVF attributes to determine if local landscape HCVF attributes (connectivity to riparian or forested corridors) might be impacted by activities on the abutting lands. The plan shall include how the screening is conducted. Within two years of certification, the monitoring plan shall be implemented operationally on ATP forestland. (Criterion 9.4) Condition 9: Within one year of certification, CRM shall provide more detailed rules of entry and exit into the certified pool as an explicit section in the CRM Policy Manual or a separate document. Specifically, the rules must clarify: a) during the entry process, the process for ensuring that weaknesses identified in CRM Gap Analyses are explicitly acknowledged by the group member and acted upon (e.g. timetable or memo with signatures of both parties with actions and deadlines), and b) during the exit process, other actions that will take place when a member leaves the group besides no longer being able to sell certified forest products. (Section 5) Condition 10: Throughout the certification period, CRM shall develop, as part of every annual planning process and annual plan, a more regular and detailed implementation schedule for monitoring activities of each group member, and the CRM group in general. Clearer and more formal monitoring system expectations (timing, scope of monitoring visits, and reporting requirements) by the CRM, the Forest Managers and the Land Manager (the three tiers of the CRM system) must be in place in general for the CRM system and for all specific group members. CRM monitoring reports should follow a consistent format, and other monitoring reports (e.g. by the Forest Managers or Land Managers) should be referenced where appropriate to demonstrate how Forest Manager and Land Manager monitoring contributes to CRM monitoring. All CRM monitoring reports (and contributing appendices) must be made available to SmartWood auditors upon request. (Section 5) Condition 11: Within one year of certification, CRM shall write a procedure/policy that clearly articulates TNC's expectations of forest managers in the CRM system in terms of stakeholder consultation and interaction. This should include clarity on the type and frequency of stakeholder consultation TNC expects of its forest managers, and how stakeholder input will be used to improve planning and management on an ongoing basis. (Section 5) Condition 12: Throughout the certification period, the CRM MOA and CRM Gap Analysis shall be in place before addition of each new CRM group member. (Section 5) Condition 13: A SmartWood audit shall occur during the first period of winter months available upon completion of the certification assessment process, when harvesting is occurring and preferably with operators on site (in order to

21

observe typical harvesting practices, e.g. worker safety, skid trail and other harvesting and silvicultural practices, etc.). (Section 5) Condition 14: Effective immediately upon certification, SmartWood must be notified by CRM prior to adding a property, or multiple properties, to their certified pool if one of more of the following conditions apply: The total area of property/properties to be added within one year is equal to, or is greater than, the area of the initial CRM group member property (ATP – 27,752 acres); The additional property or properties are in a different FSC standards region (within the USA or internationally) than properties already included in the CRM pool; or There are indications either internally at TNC or among stakeholders that the proposed property is highly conflictive. Should one or more of the above conditions develop, SmartWood reserves the right to require an audit prior to the CRM adding the property/properties to the pool. Such an audit may also require public consultation steps (e.g. 30 day notice to stakeholders, interviews with stakeholders, etc.). (Section 5) CARs – TNC Expansion Audit 2003 (Upper St. John River Property, ME) CAR 1-03: By the first annual audit, TNC consult with lawyers to clarify the necessity of putting in a dispute resolution clause in the standard contracts for contractors. (Criterion 4.3) CAR 2-03: By the time of the next audit for this forest tract, TNC shall review the USJR monitoring plan to explore how monitoring of forest operations from a social perspective might be improved, e.g. regular collection of data on social aspects or impacts, and specifically a review of how community, contractor and employee aspects are monitored and changes reflected/introduced in management where necessary. (Criterion 8.2) CAR 3-03: Prior to the next SmartWood audit (and for all future harvest operations), TNC shall complete the planned pre- and post harvest monitoring in a systematic fashion. TNC shall demonstrate how stand-level information was actually used to assess how management vision, goals, and objectives have been achieved and how it was used to determine further follow-up actions that might be required. (Criterion 8.4) CAR 4-03: TNC CRM Manager shall ensure that the latest FSC regional standard is used for the Gap Analysis. (Resource Manager Policy)

22

SmartWood Certification Annual Addendum to the Public Summary for The Nature Conservancy, 2003

1.1 Expansion Audit Process

A. Audit year: 2003

B. Dates of Audit: September 7-11, 2003

C. Audit Team and qualifications: The audit team included:

Richard Z. Donovan, Team Leader, Certification and natural resources management specialist; Andrew Whitman, Biologist; and, Michael Cline, Forester.

More details on the audit team’s professional background provided in Section 2.2 of the Public Summary above.

D. Audit Overview: In summary, the team conducted four days of field work in the Upper St. John River (USJR) forest, and separate interviews with staff of Huber Resources and TNC, as well as a sampling of other stakeholders (environmental organizations, contractors, and other interested parties). A public announcement of the expansion audit was distributed by SmartWood, prior to the field work, using email. Most recent harvest areas within the USJR were visited, as well as other forest areas, including leased camps, recreation/camping sites, riparian zones, late successional forest areas, strict protection zones, TNC/Huber offices and immediate environs, forest management areas at different stages of management (pre-harvest, recently completed harvests and areas under planning for future harvest). More detailed description of the audit process is described in Section 2.3 of the Public Summary.

E. Sites Visited: The following townships in northwestern Maine were visited as part of the audit process: T8R17, T8R18, T9R17, T10R16, T11R16, T11R17, and T12R16. A more detailed description of forest sites at the USJR forest is provided in Section 2.3 of the Public Summary.

F. Personnel Interviewed: Approximately 200 individuals and organizations received a copy of the public stakeholder notice for this Expansion Audit. The following people were specifically interviewed during this Expansion Audit:

Person interviewed Position/Organization 4 individuals (names to remain confidential) Environmental organizations in Maine Burgason, Barry Huber Resources Cowperthwaite, Albro North Maine Woods, director Dean, Bonnie North Maine Woods, field staff Doiron, Bonnie Huber Resources Fergusson, Kenny Huber Resources Gardner, Roy Selectman, Allagash town office Jewett, Phil US Customs Agent Johnson, Cathy Natural Resources Council of Maine Kelly, Vernon Stetson Timberlands (manager for adjoining lands and also

contractor to TNC) O’Malley, Jim Huber Resources manager for USJR Philbrook, Joel Huber Resources forester for USJR Price, Fran Raymond TNC manager of CRM Program

23

Ryder, Roger Maine Forest Service (water quality) Stockwell, Kyle TNC Maine (USJR coordinator) Tourtelotte, Marylyn Allagash Waterway (director) Vickery, Barbara TNC Maine (conservation planning)

G. Documentation reviewed:

TNC provided a very detailed documentation binder with approximately 72 different documents. The list of documents is organized by FSC Principle, allowing relatively rapid review of supporting evidence for the audit process. The documentation included both public and confidential documents. Examples of key documents include: USJR Management Plan; Timber Management Agreement between TNC and Huber; Multiple maps at the stand and landscape level; Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the TNC CRM Program and TNC Maine; TNC CRM Program Gap Analysis covering USJR forest; Draft of the Huber Resources Standard Operating Procedures manual; St. John River Resource Protection Plan; Letters and other records related to camp leaseholders on USJR lands; and, Records of TNC tax payments, wood sales and reporting to public agencies.

1.2 General Audit Findings and Conclusions TNC management of the USJR forest is at a very high level of quality. TNC has effectively implemented the process and procedures for expansion of the CRM pool to include USJR. Though there are improvements that can be made in certain aspects of the USJR management, SmartWood auditors recommend adding USJR to the TNC certified pool, pending TNC’s acceptance of the stipulated CARs below.

1.3 Status of Conditions and Corrective Action Requests (CARs)

A. Compliance Summary of Previously Issued Conditions and CARs This audit focused solely on the expansion of the TNC certification to include the USJR tract in the TNC CRM pool of certified lands. There have been no annual audits of TNC yet, so there are no CARs to be audited. The only Conditions audited were those related to the CRM system in general, as per the SmartWood Resource Manager certification policy.

B. New CARs Issued in this Audit CAR 1-03: By the first annual audit, TNC consult with lawyers to clarify the necessity of putting in a dispute resolution clause in the standard contracts for contractors. (Criterion 4.3) CAR 2-03: By the time of the next audit for this forest tract, TNC shall review the USJR monitoring plan to explore how monitoring of forest operations from a social perspective might be improved, e.g. regular collection of data on social aspects or impacts, and specifically a review of how community, contractor and employee aspects are monitored and changes reflected/introduced in management where necessary. (Criterion 8.2) CAR 3-03: Prior to the next SmartWood audit (and for all future harvest operations), TNC shall complete the planned pre- and post harvest monitoring in a systematic fashion. TNC shall demonstrate how stand-level information was actually used to assess how management vision, goals, and objectives have been achieved and how it was used to determine further follow-up actions that might be required. (Criterion 8.4) CAR 4-03: TNC CRM Manager shall ensure that the latest FSC regional standard is used for the Gap Analysis. (Resource Manager Policy)

24

1.4. Currently Applicable Conditions and Corrective Action Requests

The following provides a review of all certification conditions from the original assessment that are applicable to this audit. Any Corrective Action Requests (CAR) generated during past audits are also reviewed. For each condition/CAR a finding is presented along with a description of its current status using the following categories. As is the case with certification conditions, failure to meet CARs may result in suspension or termination of a SmartWood certificate.

Condition/CAR

Status Categories Explanation

Closed Certified operation has successfully met condition/ CAR. Closed indicates the condition/CAR does not need to be revisited in future audits.

Not met Certified operation has not met the condition/CAR. A new CAR must be developed defining the remaining unmet elements of the original condition/ CAR, including a timetable for completion.

Partially met Certified operation has partially met the condition/ CAR. A new CAR must be developed defining the remaining unmet elements of the original condition/ CAR, including a timetable for completion.

Met/Ongoing Certified operation has satisfactorily met the condition/CAR, but it has not been closed, must be revisited at each subsequent audit.

Condition 12: Throughout the certification period, the CRM MOA and CRM Gap Analysis shall be in place before addition of each new CRM group member. (Section 5) Finding: TNC implemented a CRM Gap Analysis prior to adding the Upper St. Johns River (USJR) tract as a new group member. Status: Met/Ongoing

Condition 14: Effective immediately upon certification, SmartWood must be notified by CRM prior to adding a property, or multiple properties, to their certified pool if one of more of the following conditions apply: The total area of property/properties to be added within one year is equal to, or is greater than, the area of the initial CRM group member property (ATP – 27,752 acres); The additional property or properties are in a different FSC standards region (within the USA or internationally) than properties already included in the CRM pool; or, There are indications either internally at TNC or among stakeholders that the proposed property is highly conflictive. Should one or more of the above conditions develop, SmartWood reserves the right to require an audit prior to the CRM adding the property/properties to the pool. Such an audit may also require public consultation steps (e.g. 30 day notice to stakeholders, interviews with stakeholders, etc.). Finding: TNC notified SmartWood and engaged SmartWood to implement an on-site audit prior to adding the USJR tract, as per certification requirements. Status: Met/Ongoing

25

SmartWood Certification Annual Addendum to the Public Summary for The Nature Conservancy, 2004

1.1 Audit Process

A. Audit year: 2004

B. Dates of Audit: February 27, 2004

C. Audit Team: Robert R. Bryan, Forester-Ecologist. M.S. Forestry, University of Vermont; B.S. Botany and Environmental Studies, University of Vermont. Forest Ecologist, Maine Audubon and Consulting Forester/Ecologist. Lic. Maine Forester #907. Over 20 years professional experience in forestry, forest ecology, and environmental consulting, including FSC regional and national standards development, peer review of industrial forest certification, development of state policies for forest certification, environmental impact assessment, natural resource planning, forest inventory, management planning, and timber sale administration. Jon Jickling, Forester. M.S. in Forest Economics from Univ. of Minnesota.; B.S. in Forest Management from Univ. of Michigan. SmartWood Systems and Quality Control Manager (1995-present); 3 years as consulting forester in Vermont; 9 years practicing community forestry and natural resource management in Latin America and Caribbean.

D. Audit Overview: The focus of the audit was to verify The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC)

continued compliance with the FSC Principles and Criteria as well as successful completion of certification Conditions that were to be addressed by the end of the first year and/or apply throughout the certification period. The audit involved onsite visits to the Atlas Timberland properties in Vermont, meetings with TNC staff conducted by Mr. Bryan and review of TNC management documentation by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Jickling. Policies and plans required by the conditions were reviewed at the office of David McMath along with other Atlas Timberland Partnership (ATP) staff on 27 February 2004. Two active logging operations, which constitute the majority of the annual harvest, were visited in the late morning and afternoon. Correspondence with ATP staff was maintained before and after the field audit to address specific questions and data needs. TNC Certified Resource Manager (CRM) documentation, including the TNC CRM policy manual, was reviewed to determine compliance with specific certification conditions.

E. Sites Visited:

Forest Name, Town Assessment Site Focus of Site Visit Hazen Notch, Lowell Eastern section of

parcel south and east of landing

Active operation. Partial overstory removal in well-regenerated northern hardwood stand, snag and cavity tree retention policy, stream buffer policy, stream crossings, skid trail layout, equipment use, and logger interview

Eden Square, Eden Northeast section of parcel

Active operation. Thinning/improvement cut in northern hardwoods and mixedwood, snag and cavity tree retention policy, stream buffer policy, stream crossings, skid trail layout, equipment use, and logger interview.

F. Personnel Interviewed:

26

The following people were consulted during this audit:

Person interviewed Position/Organization Fran Raymond Price Certified Resource Manager program director, TNC, Arlington,

VA John Roe Director of Conservation Programs, TNC, Montpelier, VT;

ATP Co-Director Lyn Munno Conservation Planning Associate, TNC, Montpelier, VT David McMath ATP forester, McMath Forestry, East Hardwick, VT Robert Turner ATP forest analyst and systems specialist, R.J. Turner Co.,

Bristol, VT

Carl Powden Forest Projects Manager, Vermont Land Trust; ATP Co-Director

Don Lefaivre Don Lefaivre Logging, Lyndonville, VT George Allen George Allen Logging, Craftsbury, VT

G. Documentation reviewed:

• 2003 certification assessment report • CRM Annual Monitoring Summary, 29-30 January 2004 • Harvest Area Worksheets (harvest plans), Hazen Notch and Eden Square • Review of field work 7/1/02 – 7/1/03 • Description of ATP approach to identifying areas of ecological significance • Interim Ecological Considerations (coarse woody debris and stream/wetland buffers) • ATP Regeneration Protocol and Sample Regeneration Report • ATP Boundary Maintenance Plan • Report on posting against ATV use • Operating Summary for Atlas Partnership Winter 2002-Summer 2003 (harvest totals) • ATP Annual Operating Plan 2003-2004 • TNC-CRM Policy Manual (February 2004 update)

1.2 General Audit Findings and Conclusions

TNC has continued to demonstrate excellence in natural forest management and restoration on the ATP property. Polices have been developed and refined, and implemented, including stream and wetland buffers, coarse woody debris, areas of ecological significance, and posting against damaging unauthorized use from all terrain vehicles. ATP staff has developed an excellent database and plan for maintaining the 160 miles of boundaries on 30 parcels in the project. A comprehensive annual operating plan, detailed harvest plans, and a thorough review and approval process have been developed and implemented. Staff and principle contractors in the management team expressed enthusiasm for the ATP project. Field implementation, as indicated by audits of two active operations, was excellent. Because the project has a dual focus of conservation and revenue production, the team is continuing to explore ways to meet both goals. While TNC’s policies and plans have a strong conservation focus, many of the policies are new or are undergoing occasional revision as the project develops. The auditor found a need for tighter control and approval of policy documents so that a consistent management system can be maintained among the partners, employees, and principle contractors of the project. The CRM policy document has logically evolved since TNC’s original certification. The document is likely to continue to evolve in the near future, based on input on the most recent version. According to TNC’s Group Manager, all group members and contractors have been apprised of changes to the document prior to this audit. That there appears to be lingering confusion among field staff perhaps underscores the need for some improvements in document control and/or communication with group members.

27

Overall TNC has demonstrated continued compliance with the FSC Principles and Criteria and adequate progress in meeting defined certification conditions. The audit team recommends that TNC maintain their certified status.

1.3 Status of Conditions and Corrective Action Requests (CARs) A. Compliance Summary of Previously Issued Conditions and CARs TNC has satisfactorily complied with Conditions 11 of 13 conditions applicable in their first year of certification. TNC has not completed work on Condition 7 and Condition 8. Two Corrective Action Requests (CARs) have been developed to address shortcomings associated with meeting these two conditions. Two additional CARS (CAR 1-04, CAR 2-04) have been developed to address issues unrelated to Conditions. Condition 1: Closed. Condition 2: Closed. Condition 3: Closed. Condition 4: Met/Ongoing. Condition 6: Closed. Condition 7: Closed.. Condition 8: Not Met. Replaced by CAR 3-04. Condition 9: Closed. Condition 10: Closed. Condition 11: Closed Condition 12: Met/Ongoing Condition 13: Closed. Condition 14: Met/Ongoing B. New CARs Issued in this Audit

CAR 1-04: Effective immediately, and prior to the next sale of timber or logs, TNC must include their FSC certification code, and a statement identifying logs as FSC certified, on truck tickets, invoices and contracts associated with FSC certified stumpage and logs for which TNC wishes to carry the FSC certification claim forward to their buyer. Claims must be in keeping with FSC and SmartWood labeling rules. CAR 2-04. Prior to the 2005 annual audit, TNC must develop and implement a system to link all polices and plans in a cohesive framework, to date policies and plans, and to inform all group members, employees, and contractors of changes and ensure that they are using the current versions of these documents. In addition, the template management plan and new management plans should include or reference the current version of applicable policies and plans that guide specific aspects of the activities. CAR 3-04. Prior to the 2005 audit, TNC’s long-term approach to monitoring for HCVF attributes as the forest changes must be included in the template management plan and any new management plans completed as per Condition 5.

28

SmartWood Certification Annual Addendum to the Public Summary for The Nature Conservancy 2005; SW-FM/COC-238

1. AUDIT PROCESS

1.1 Auditors and qualifications:

Robert W. Mayer, ACF, Consulting Forester and Forest Product Industry Consultant. MS Forest Management / Wood Technology, Michigan State University, BS Biology / Chemistry, Oakland University. Experience includes over 28 years of applied hardwood silviculture, forest product industry management, forest product utilization and marketing enhancement, forest investment analyses, and extensive personal applications manifested on Mayer Tree Farms, Inc. forestlands. SmartWood Forest Assessor Training, 4/2001, SmartWood Team Leader Training, 6/2001. Mr. Mayer has performed approximately 10 SmartWood audits since 2000.

1.2 Audit schedule

Date Location /main sites Main activities

Nov. 21, 2005 Laconia IN / TNC Office Hinton Glade (Heritage Project) Horihan Tract / Elizabeth IN / Taylor Twp., Harrison County Conley Tract / Webster Twp., Harrison County, Section 32 Keehn Tract / Posey Twp., Harrison County, Section 1 Campbell Tract / S. New Albany Twp .,

Review / discuss SW principles. Review TNC Indiana Forest Banks (INFB) forest management and inventory documentation, GIS system and outreach programs. Discuss INFB program, including determination of values and associated annuity payments. Recent controlled burn on designated central limestone forest glade. Discussion of glade determination including indicator species, re-establishment, evolution, significance, and protection. 30 acre upland oak stand marked by TNC forester and recently harvested. 90.7 acre upland oak stand. Marked for harvest by consulting forester as per TNC management plan and guidelines – not yet harvested. Primary objective is oak/hickory reestablishment. A 120.5 acre tract overlooking the Ohio River. Review restoration, public corridor potential, and invasive exotic species control. An 82 acre tract recently harvested as per a selective marking. Discussions included previous storm damage, landscape level management, RTE species (Harvey’s Buttercup), harvest techniques, timber harvest contracts, log road layout, log job

29

Floyd County, Section 8

“close out” procedures, and long term management.

Nov. 22, 2005 Abingdon VA / TNC Office

Review / discuss SW principles, outreach programs, and review comprehensive documentation.

Nov. 23, 2005 Abingdon VA / TNC Office Clifton Farms –Russell County / Kent Ridge. N37.029, W81.864 (approximate center of entire Clifton holding)

Office review of Clifton, Clinch River and Rich Mountain documentation. Discussion of TNC Clinch Valley management goals and long term leasing arrangements. Review management and pending management on various stands with pending, on-going and post harvest operations. Review log road layout, scaling, valuation, lease protocol, directional felling, management objectives, regeneration, forest land carrying costs, past land use, multiple land use, and more.

Total number of person days used for the audit:3.5 = number of auditors participating 1 times total number of days spent for the audit 3.5

1.3 Sampling methodology:

The INFB and CVP audit strategies were substantially similar in format. Both included an initial visit to the respective regional offices. The office visits included necessary document review, clarification and dialog revolving around annual activities, changes, forest management goals and mechanisms. FMU’s visited were selected based upon recent activities, variation in activities, variations in forest types, sites, and CRM and/or landowner goals, and lastly, upon physical proximity. The 5 acre Hinton Glade site, which is not included in the INFB CRM, was selected as the protection of glades is an overarching INFB goal. The auditor briefly visited the site to gain a better understanding of forest glades.

FMU or Site audited

Rationale for selection Group FMU belongs to and number of FMUs in the group

Hinton Glade Heritage Project; restoration of HVCF

Not included in Certified Resource Manager (CRM) Forest Bank

Horihan Tract Recently closed timber harvests, road construction and rehabilitation, forest stand improvement activities. Added to certification.

Indiana Forest Bank (INFB) 32 FMUs in INFB

Conley Tract

Planned timber harvests, habitat restoration and enhancement, review regeneration goals. Added to certification.

Indiana Forest Bank (INFB) 32 FMUs in INFB

Keehn Tract

Habitat restoration and enhancement, long term land use protection objective. Added to certification.

Indiana Forest Bank (INFB) 32 FMUs in INFB

30

Campbell Tract

Recently closed timber harvests, Road construction and rehabilitation, forest stand improvement activities. Added to certification.

Indiana Forest Bank (INFB) 32 FMUs in INFB

Clifton Farms Planned, active and recently closed timber harvests, Road construction and rehabilitation, monitoring, most representative of other Clinch Valley TNC holdings. Added to certification.

Clinch Valley Program (CVP) 3 FMUs

1.4 Stakeholder consultation process

Stakeholders were informed of the pending audit via the TNC. The two governmental stakeholders were the present Indiana State Forester, and the past Indiana State Forester, both of whom had provided direct services to TNC in formulating forest inventory procedures. The three NGO stakeholders were vendors providing forest management services on specific FMU’s visited. These three NGO stakeholders were visited on site, allowing said vendors to better explain their activities and express their views about TNC as a client. Lastly, the local inhabitant stakeholder was a forest user deriving forest recreation benefits upon a specific, visited FMU.

Stakeholder type (NGO, government, local inhabitant

etc.)

Number of stakeholders informed

Number of stakeholders consulted or providing

input NGO 0 3 Government 2 2 Local inhabitant 0 1

1.5 Changes to Standards (if applicable)

For the implementation of this audit the following standards were used: Forest Bank / IN Lake States Standard ver 2.0 Clinch Valley Program / VA Appalachian Standard ver 4.0 ATP / VT Northeast Standard ver 8.1 USJR / ME Northeast Standard ver 8.1 This audit represents the first time TNC is being audited against the Lake States and Appalachian Standard and a full evaluation of the standard on IN and VA properties was conducted and is reported in Appendix IV. For the Northeast Standard, there has been a slight change in the standard since the last audit. Primary changes to the new version are addition of sections on rules and review of standard for the working group; harmonization with Canada; and changes to the Federal Lands sections, which do not apply to TNC. Criterion 1.6 has been modified to include partial certification rules. TNC has been evaluated against these changes. Most other changes are minor editorial changes, clarifications, and/or notes on applicability. These changes have also been evaluated and TNC has been found to be in full conformance with the changes to this standard.

2. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RESULTS

2.1 Changes in the forest management of the FMO

31

The prevailing philosophies and management activities demonstrated in the 2003 initial evaluation of Nature Conservancy (TNC) forest management of Atlas Timberlands Partnership (ATP) in Vermont and the Upper St. John River Forest (USJR) in Maine extend to the new TNC additions. The new TNC additions include 32 holdings in Indiana (FSC Lake States Regional Standard), and 3 holdings in Virginia (FSC Appalachian Regional Standard). The Indiana and Virginia additions exhibited anticipated and acceptable regional management techniques as per varying forest types, geographical areas, and local forest resource management protocol. Like the VT and ME properties, the new additions to the certified group in IN and VA are managed according to the TNC’s Certified Resource Manager (CRM) group management policies and systems. The TNC had no significant changes to their CRM management systems. Said CRM management systems align well with accepted silvicultural regimes in their respective geographic regions.

2.2 Stakeholder issues

The Nature Conservancy is to be commended for its proactive intensive and extensive community outreach, networks and participation. Accordingly, no significant stakeholder issues were identified during this audit. Stakeholder comments were universally favorable, endorsing the TNC as a client, forestland manager, and provider of ancillary forest activities including hunting, recreational use, and overall land stewardship. Typical comments included endorsement of regeneration tactics, silvicultural goals, and TNC INFB / CVP goals.

2.3 Compliance with applicable corrective actions The section below describes the activities of the certificate holder to address each applicable corrective action issued during previous evaluations. For each CAR a finding is presented along with a description of its current status using the following categories. Failure to meet CARs will result in noncompliances being upgraded from minor to major noncompliances with compliance required within 3 months or face suspension or termination of the SmartWood certificate. The following classification is used to indicate the status of the CAR:

CAR Status Categories Explanation Closed Certified operation has successfully met the

CAR and addressed the underlying noncompliance.

Open Certified operation has not met the CAR; underlying noncompliance is still present. CAR becomes a Major CAR with a 3 month deadline for compliance

CAR #: 5 Reference Standard #: 7.1 Non-compliance: Major Minor

Fully documented and functioning management plans did not exist on all actively managed ATP lands.

Corrective Action Request: The process of management planning shall be more fully developed and expressed by completing new forest management plans for at least 25 percent of the managed acreage (only those properties that are scheduled for management activities during the next 5 years), with plans to be developed for 25 percent more acreage coverage for each of the three successive years. This means that by the 5th year of certification, all of the actively managed ATP lands will have fully documented and functioning forest management plans. These plans will include all aspects of those detailed in the Richford-Jay template. In addition, the following elements must be added to the plans: a written statement connecting the document to the CRM, a specific schedule of general management (e.g., harvesting, road building) and monitoring activities, and more refined, stand-level maps that show

32

important within stand features (e.g., skids trails, riparian areas, vernal pools, cultural sites, etc.). Such additions to maps shall be made as stands are revisited for some reason, and records of such activities (and map upgrades) shall be kept. At least 5 such maps shall be made annually, with maps for all managed properties being made by the next certification assessment. Timeline for Compliance: Within two years of certification

Audit findings: Atlas is on schedule in their management planning, having completed 25% of management plans. An updated plan for Richford-Jay was completed, and a plan for the Central Unit of Atlas is nearing completion. TNC has created an overarching management plan for all 26,000 acres within the Atlas Timberlands Partnership and continues to update specific unit plans within ATP. The updated Richford-Jay plan was reviewed. The overarching plan addresses all facets common to all ATP FMU’s and serves as a uniform plan applying to all ATP FMU’s. The ATP overarching plan contains all of the elements included in the Richford-Jay template, as well as additional elements, such as the relevant ecological thresholds and targets. It also includes a written statement connecting the document and management planning/practices to the CRM. The specific unit plans have a schedule of management and monitoring activities. Stand-level maps are produced as work is done in a given area, and include relevant within-stand features. At present, there are both start-up maps that are attached to the harvest plans and cut maps, which reflect the post-harvest stand boundaries. A number of elements have been added to the GIS database and to stand maps, including permanent skid roads, stand boundaries updated for recent harvests, significant ecological features, riparian buffers, and cultural features. TNC is on schedule with developing tract level management plans that include all components required and rate identified in the CAR. Additionally, they have developed maps with as outlined in the CAR. Therefore, this CAR has been addressed and can be closed. Status: Closed Follow-up Action: None

CAR #: 12 Reference Standard #: GC-4 Non-compliance: Major Minor

A precautionary CAR ensures properties to be added to the group certification undergo a gap analysis.

Corrective Action Request: The CRM MOA and CRM Gap Analysis shall be in place before addition of each new CRM group member. Timeline for Compliance: Throughout the certification period

Audit findings: TNC Gap Analyses and MOA’s for the Clinch Valley Program and for the Indiana Forest Bank have been completed and reviewed by the auditor. The TNC Gap Analysis process, addressing essentially all FSC and SmartWood standards and policies, has been performed with each new addition to the certified group and will be performed for all future TNC additions. Therefore, this CAR can be closed. Status: Closed Follow-up Action: None

CAR #: 14 Reference Standard #: GC-3, GC-5 Non-compliance: Major Minor

A precautionary CAR to ensure TNC is able to manage growth in the certified group.

Corrective Action Request: SmartWood must be notified by CRM prior to adding a property, or multiple properties, to their certified pool if one of more of the following conditions apply:

- The total area of property/properties to be added within one year is equal to, or is greater than, the area of the initial CRM group member property (ATP – 27,752 acres);

33

- The additional property or properties are in a different FSC standards region (within the USA or internationally) than properties already included in the CRM pool; or

- There are indications either internally at TNC or among stakeholders that the proposed property is highly conflictive

Should one or more of the above conditions develop, SmartWood reserves the right to require an audit prior to the CRM adding the property/properties to the pool. Such an audit may also require public consultation steps (e.g. 30 day notice to stakeholders, interviews with stakeholders, etc.). Timeline for Compliance: Effective immediately upon certification

Audit findings: This CAR does not represent a nonconformance with the standard. No properties have been formally added to the certified group since the 2003 expansion audit that added the Upper St. John River tract. This 2005 expansion audit will add the Indiana Forest Bank properties and the Virginia Clinch Valley Conservation Forestry Program properties to the Nature Conservancy’s certified group. TNC has notified SmartWood representatives of all pending additions, and will continue to notify SW representatives of all future planned additions, regardless of whether said planned additions are in different FSC standards region than properties already included in the CRM pool. As per Group Certification Requirements (GC-5), TNC is required to notify SmartWood within 30 days of adding or removing properties to the certified group. This will automatically evaluated during each annual audit. Therefore, this CAR can be closed. Referencing CAR # 12, TNC will continue to provide their Gap Analysis for future additions thus further guaranteeing SmartWood conformance. Status: Closed Follow-up Action: None

CAR #: 1-03 Reference Standard #: 4.3 Non-compliance: Major Minor

TNC contractor contracts did not include a dispute resolution clause for the Upper St. John River property.

Corrective Action Request:, TNC consult with lawyers to clarify the necessity of putting in a dispute resolution clause in the standard contracts for contractors. Timeline for Compliance: By the first annual audit

Audit findings: TNC staff associated with the Upper St. John River, to whom this CAR was assigned, have contacted TNC’s Northeast regional attorneys and inquired about this issue. TNC counsel has suggested that it is not appropriate for TNC to dictate the specifics of contracts between the land manager and their contractors. The attorney did recommend dispute resolution language in the management agreement between TNC and Huber Resources, the land manager. Huber is supportive of this concept. Draft language is as follows. This language will be further explored with Huber, and, as appropriate, added to the MOA. “The Conservancy and Huber enter into this Management Agreement with mutual respect and with the understanding that each party will make every reasonable effort to resolve any impasse. In the unlikely event a resolution cannot be reached, the parties agree to submit to mediation under the commercial industry rules of the American Arbitration Association. In the event a resolution cannot be reached through mediation, the dispute shall be submitted to arbitration under the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The costs of arbitration shall be shared equally by the parties.” Status: Closed Follow-up Action: None

CAR #: 3-03 Reference Standard #: 8.4 Non-compliance: Major Minor

On the Upper St. John property, the pre- and post survey by TNC needs to be better integrated into decision making system.

Corrective Action Request:, TNC shall complete the planned pre- and post harvest monitoring in a systematic fashion. TNC shall demonstrate how stand-level information was actually used to assess how management vision, goals, and objectives have been achieved and how it was used to determine further follow-up actions that might be

34

required. Timeline for Compliance: Prior to the next SmartWood audit (and for all future harvest operations)

Audit findings: Conservancy staff associated with the Upper St. John River (USJR), to whom this condition was assigned, has carried out the pre-and post-harvest monitoring systematically in 2004 and are completing 2005 monitoring activities. TNC is now in the second year of its pre- and post-harvest monitoring program, the information from which will ultimately be linked to their GIS. TNC continues to streamline the process, so that a representative sampling of blocks are visited each year. The pre-harvest monitoring records any real or potential weaknesses, incorporates them into their decision making processes, and subsequently provides recommendations and feedback to Huber forest management staff. The post monitoring system similarly reveals existing weaknesses which are again incorporated in the decision making system so as to eliminate future occurrences. The 2004 USJR report was reviewed and meets the referenced standard. Status: Closed Follow-up Action: None

CAR #: 4-03 Reference Standard #: GC-8 Non-compliance: Major Minor

The most recent version of the FSC regional standards was not being used for the Gap Analysis.

Corrective Action Request: TNC CRM Manager shall ensure that the latest FSC regional standard is used for the Gap Analysis. Timeline for Compliance: Ongoing

Audit findings: All Gap Analysis processes that have been done since this CAR was issued have used the most recent FSC regional standards (as per the FSC US website). The Gap Analysis format has changed slightly since the last audit, and the first part of the Gap Analysis, which relates to meeting regional standards, is now designed to note gaps according to each FSC Principle. This does not mean that criteria and indicators in the standard are not expressly considered, it merely indicates that this portion of the Gap Analysis was getting unnecessarily lengthy because of inclusion of all the regional standards language. This will continue to be automatically evaluated whenever new properties are added to the group certification; therefore, this CAR can be closed. Status: Closed Follow-up Action: None

CAR #: 1-04 Reference Standard #: COC-5 Non-compliance: Major Minor

TNC FSC certification registration number was not included on truck tickets that accompanied certified logs from ATP lands.

Corrective Action Request:, TNC must include their FSC certification code, and a statement identifying logs as FSC certified, on truck tickets, invoices and contracts associated with FSC certified stumpage and logs for which TNC wishes to carry the FSC certification claim forward to their buyer. Claims must be in keeping with FSC and SmartWood labeling rules. Timeline for Compliance: Effective immediately, and prior to the next sale of timber or logs

Audit findings: Atlas and Upper St. John River invoices, contracts and trip tickets include the FSC certification code. A sample trip ticket from Atlas was reviewed and found in conformance. Status: Closed Follow-up Action: None

CAR #: 2-04 Reference Standard #: GC-4, GC-9 Non-compliance: Major Minor

Lack of integrated system to manage policies and other management documents.

35

Corrective Action Request:, TNC must develop and implement a system to link all polices and plans in a cohesive framework, to date policies and plans, and to inform all group members, employees, and contractors of changes and ensure that they are using the current versions of these documents. In addition, the template management plan and new management plans should include or reference the current version of applicable policies and plans that guide specific aspects of the activities. Timeline for Compliance: Prior to the 2005 annual audit

Audit findings: All TNC FM documents are now dated so it is clear which version is the most recent. CRM policies have been updated and sent to all group members for input. The revised (10/17/2005) TNC CRM policy document was reviewed and found to be comprehensive and in conformance. The TNC Certification Group Manager is in charge of updating and distributing the CRM policy document. The CRM document is reviewed annually. Changes may come from updating language that is no longer relevant or to address issues that have been brought up by property managers in the group. Whenever changes are made, the document is sent to all concerned parties for comment. After comments are considered and incorporated as appropriate, a final, dated document is distributed to all CRM property managers. In addition, all properties in the CRM have signed an MOA that indicates that they comply with the CRM policy document. To make certain that everyone is using the same version of the CRM document, users reference the date of the current document in their management documentation. Status: Closed Follow-up Action: None

CAR #: 3-04 Reference Standard #: 9.4 Non-compliance: Major Minor

A description of how HCVF attributes will be monitored in the future on ATP was not included in the template management plan

Corrective Action Request:, TNC’s long-term approach to monitoring for HCVF attributes as the forest changes must be included in the template management plan and any new management plans completed as per Condition 5. Timeline for Compliance: Prior to the 2005 audit

Audit findings: TNC staff associated with the Atlas Timberlands Partnership, to whom this CAR was assigned, have developed a long-term approach to monitoring for HCVF attributes. Although no HCVFs have been identified on Atlas lands to date, HCVF attributes will be monitored in the field on 10 year cycles by monitoring vegetational change in permanent plots. In addition, through annual or semiannual timber cruises, which also collect information on coarse woody debris, snags and potential cavities, TNC managers will more regularly obtain information on the forest in an ongoing fashion. Much of this data will be relevant for tracking HCVF attributes. Various endangered species lists and Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage lists of rare species will be monitored on a periodic basis. The monitoring will allow TNC to track species whose habitat should be considered, in addition to those areas of high biodiversity value identified in the original biodiversity survey of Atlas Timberlands. Based on changes in forest condition as indicated by the formal monitoring of vegetation, TNC expects to periodically resurvey the property for areas of high biodiversity. The approach is outlined in the overarching management plan for the Atlas Timberlands Partnership. Future additions to the group certification will likewise adhere to a similar monitoring HCVF process, where applicable. Status: Closed Follow-up Action: None

2.4 New corrective actions issued as a result of this audit

CAR #: 1/05 Reference Standard #: 7.1, 8.1, 8.2 Non-compliance: Major Minor

Current management plans within the TNC’s Indiana Forest Bank do not universally and specifically address all FSC principles.

Corrective Action Request: By the 2006 audit, TNC Indiana Forest Bank (INFB) managers shall develop and implement a schedule to update all INFB management plans by the end of the TNC CRM certification period. Updated plans shall include all required elements in Criteria 7.1, 8.1 and 8.2 of the FSC Regional Lake States Standard. All new TNC INFB additions shall have management plans composed to TNC and FSC standards,

36

appropriate to the size and scale of the properties in question. Management plans may consist of a variety of documents not necessarily unified into a single planning document but which represents an integrated strategy for managing the forest. Timeline for Compliance: One Year

2.5 Audit observations

Observation Reference

Standard # OBS 1/05: More stringent and innovative timber sale contractual approaches and language could result in the TNC CRM maintaining a greater degree of timber harvest control and potentially greater timber sale proceeds.

5.2 / 5.3

OBS 2/05: TNC could improve harvesting performance by having in-house temporary logging bridges available for use by their forest contractors.

6.5

OBS 3/05: Plans should reference where contributing documents can be located. 7.1 OBS 4/05: The INFB Riparian Buffer Policy could be expanded to address pesticide use within each zone.

6.7

OBS 5/05: TNC INFB could consider additional Timber Sale Contract restrictions, including documentation of Logger Training, quantification of residual stand damage and related costs for said damage, specific directional felling requests, specific log road layout and yard requests, equipment preferences, equipment restrictions, equipment opportunities, performance bonding, etc.

7.3

2.6 Audit decision

The TNC CRM staff and principal contractors clearly demonstrate their personal interest and professional natural forest resource management and restoration abilities. Their interest and ability is apparent via the TNC’s conformance with existing Conditions and CARs and continued conformance with the applicable FSC Standards. Past Conditions and CARs applied primarily to the Atlas Timberland Partnership and tangentially to the TNC Upper St. John River tracts. Although the 2005 auditor did not personally visit either the Atlas Timberland Partnership or Upper St. John River tracts, TNC provided complete documentation for the tracts, enabling the 2005 auditor to close out all previous conditions and CARs. The 2005 audit was largely an expansion audit, examining documentation, resource management, implementation and restoration to determine conformance with the appropriate regional standard on two separate TNC units, the Indiana Forest Bank (INFB), and the Clinch Valley Conservation Forestry Program (CFP). The two units are significantly different, but align well under a uniform TNC management philosophy. The in-house TNC Gap Analysis aligns closely, in topic and sequence, with the FSC Principles. The Gap Analysis not only assures conformance with the FSC standard, but additionally serves as an outstanding template for comprehensive management planning and implementation. Overall TNC has demonstrated continued conformance with the FSC Principles and Criteria and adequate progress in meeting defined certification CARs. TNC has effectively implemented the process and procedures for expansion of the CRM group to include properties from the Indiana Forest Bank and the Clinch Valley Conservation Forestry Program. The 2005 auditor recommends that TNC maintain their certified status, and further recommends the addition of the Indiana Forest Bank and the Clinch Valley Conservation Forestry Program to the TNC CRM certified group.