surveillance evaluation report template - jdirving.com · po box 240 . fort kent, me 04743 -0240 ....

SCS Global Services Report

FOREST MANAGEMENT AND STUMP-TO-FOREST GATE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY

SURVEILLANCE EVALUATION REPORT

Irving Woodlands, LLC (IWLLC) J.D. Irving Northern Maine Woodlands Forestry Division

Maine, USA

SCS-FM/COC-00121N PO Box 240

Fort Kent, ME 04743-0240 United States of America

[email protected] www.jdirving.com

CERTIFIED EXPIRATION

08 December 2014 07 December 2019

DATE OF FIELD EVALUATION

23-25 October 2018 DATE OF LAST UPDATE

17 December 2018

SCS Contact: Brendan Grady | Director

Forest Management Certification +1.510.452.8000

[email protected]

2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA

+1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510.452.8001 fax www.SCSglobalServices.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.jdirving.com/


Forest Management & Stump-to-Forest Gate Chain-of-Custody Surveillance Evaluation Report | PUBLIC

Version 8-1 (August 2018) | © SCS Global Services of 19

Foreword

Cycle in annual surveillance evaluations

☐ 1st annual evaluation

☐ 2nd annual evaluation

☐ 3rd annual evaluation

☒ 4th annual evaluation

☐ Other (expansion of scope, Major CAR audit, special audit, etc.):

Name of Forest Management Enterprise (FME) and abbreviation used in this report:

Irving Woodlands, LLC (IWLLC), JDI or FME

All certificates issued by SCS under the aegis of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) require annual evaluations to ascertain ongoing conformance with the requirements and standards of certification. A public summary of the initial evaluation is available on the FSC Certificate Database http://info.fsc.org/.

Pursuant to FSC and SCS guidelines, annual / surveillance evaluations are not intended to comprehensively examine the full scope of the certified forest operations, as the cost of a full-scope evaluation would be prohibitive and it is not mandated by FSC evaluation protocols. Rather, annual evaluations are comprised of three main components:

A focused assessment of the status of any outstanding conditions or Corrective Action Requests (CARs; see discussion in section 4.0 for those CARs and their disposition as a result of this annual evaluation);

Follow-up inquiry into any issues that may have arisen since the award of certification or prior to this evaluation; and

As necessary given the breadth of coverage associated with the first two components, an additional focus on selected topics or issues, the selection of which is not known to the certificate holder prior to the evaluation.

Organization of the Report

This report of the results of our evaluation is divided into two sections. Section A provides the public summary and background information that is required by the Forest Stewardship Council. This section is made available to the public and is intended to provide an overview of the evaluation process, the management programs and policies applied to the forest, and the results of the evaluation. Section A will be posted on the FSC Certificate Database (http://info.fsc.org/) no less than 90 days after completion of the on-site evaluation. Section B contains more detailed results and information for required FSC record-keeping or the use by the FME.

http://info.fsc.org/

http://info.fsc.org/



Table of Contents SECTION A – PUBLIC SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 4

1. GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Evaluation Team .................................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Total Time Spent on Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Standards Used ................................................................................................................................... 5

2. CERTIFICATION EVALUATION PROCESS .................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Evaluation Itinerary, Activities, and Site Notes ................................................................................... 5

2.2 Evaluation of Management Systems .................................................................................................. 5

3. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................................................................................ 10

4. RESULTS OF EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Definitions of Major CARs, Minor CARs and Observations ............................................................... 10

4.2 History of Findings for Certificate Period .......................................................................................... 11

4.3 Existing Corrective Action Requests and Observations .................................................................... 11

4.4 New Corrective Action Requests and Observations ......................................................................... 12

5. STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS .................................................................................................................... 13 5.1 Stakeholder Groups Consulted ......................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Summary of Stakeholder Comments and Evaluation Team Responses ........................................... 13

6. CERTIFICATION DECISION ....................................................................................................................... 14

7. ANNUAL DATA UPDATE .......................................................................................................................... 14



SECTION A – PUBLIC SUMMARY

1. General Information

1.1 Evaluation Team Auditor name: Kyle Meister Auditor role: Lead auditor Qualifications: Kyle Meister is an FSC Forest Management (FM) and Chain of Custody (COC),

Sustainable Biomass Partnership, and Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Supply Chain Certification Lead Auditor with SCS Global Services. He has conducted FSC FM pre-assessments, evaluations or surveillance audits in Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Spain, and all major forest producing regions of the United States. He has conducted COC assessments in Bolivia, Canada, Panama, and the United States (California, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia). Mr. Meister has successfully completed CAR Lead Verifier, ISO 9001:2008 Lead Auditor, SA8000 Social Systems Introduction and Basic Auditor, RSPO Supply Chain Lead Auditor, SBP Lead Auditor, and FSC Lead Auditor and Trainer Training Courses. He holds a B.S. in Natural Resource Ecology and Management and a B.A. in Spanish from the University of Michigan; and a Master of Forestry from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Auditor name: Michael Ferrucci Auditor role: Assistant auditor Qualifications: Mike Ferrucci is qualified as a RAB-QSA Lead Auditor (ISO 14001 Environmental

Management Systems), as an SFI Lead Auditor for Forest Management, Procurement, and Chain of Custody, as an FSC Lead Auditor Forest Management and Chain of Custody, as a Tree Farm Group Certification Lead Auditor, and as a GHG Lead Auditor. Mike has led Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) certification and precertification reviews throughout the United States. He has also led or participated in joint SFI and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification projects in nearly one dozen states and a joint scoping or precertification gap-analysis project on tribal lands throughout the United States. He also co-led the pioneering pilot dual evaluation of the Lakeview Stewardship Unit on the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Mike Ferrucci has 33 years of forest management experience. His expertise is in sustainable forest management planning; in certification of forests as sustainably managed; in the application of easements for large-scale working forests, and in the ecology, silviculture, and management of mixed species forests, with an emphasis on regeneration and management of native hardwood species. Mike has conducted or participated in assessments of forest management operations throughout the United States, with field experience in 4 countries and 33 states. Mike has been a member of the Society of American Foresters for over thirty-five years. He is Past Chair of the SFI Auditor’s Forum. Mike is also a Lecturer at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, where he has taught graduate courses and workshops in forest management, harvesting operations, professional forest ethics, private forestry, and financial analysis.



1.2 Total Time Spent on Evaluation A. Number of days spent on-site assessing the applicant: 3 B. Number of auditors participating in on-site evaluation: 2 C. Number of days spent by any technical experts (in addition to amount in line A): 0 D. Additional days spent on preparation, stakeholder consultation, and follow-up: 3 E. Total number of person days used in evaluation: 9

1.3 Standards Used

All standards used are available on the websites of FSC International (www.fsc.org) or SCS Global Services (www.SCSglobalServices.com). All standards are available on request from SCS Global Services via the comment form on our website. When no national standard exists for the country/region, SCS Interim Standards are developed by modifying SCS’s Generic Interim Standard to reflect forest management in the region and by incorporating relevant components of any Draft Regional/National Standard and comments from stakeholders. More than one month prior to the start of the field evaluation, SCS Draft Interim Standards are provided to stakeholders identified by FSC International, SCS, forest managers under evaluation, and the FSC National or Regional Office for comment. SCS’s COC indicators for FMEs are based on the most current versions of the FSC Chain of Custody Standard, FSC Standard for Group Entities in Forest Management Groups (FSC-STD-30-005), and FSC Accreditation Requirements.

Standards used NOTE: Please include the full standard name and Version number and check all that apply.

☒ Forest Stewardship Standard(s), including version: FSC-US, V1-0

☒ SCS COC indicators for FMEs, V7-0

☒ FSC Trademark Standard (FSC-STD-50-001 V2-0) ☐ FSC standard for group entities in forest management groups (FSC-STD-30-005), V1-1

☐ Other:

2. Certification Evaluation Process

2.1 Evaluation Itinerary, Activities, and Site Notes Date: October 23, 2018 Oakville District / Sites Visited Activities / Notes Program-wide Opening Meeting 8:30 am – 10:00 am Both Auditors (all sites)

Introductions, client update, review scope of evaluation, audit plan, intro/update to FSC and SCS standards, confidentiality and public summary, conformance evaluation methods and review of open CARs/OBS, emergency and security procedures for evaluation team, reviewed audit itinerary.

Site 1: Dyer Brook Harvest Unit (Unit MH07432)

Completed irregular shelterwood harvest with riparian buffer. Discussion on buffer widths and identification in the field.

Site 2: Dyer Brook LSR (Unit MH07432)

Late Successional Reserve (LSRs): discussion of objectives, permitted management/conservation activities, and extent of LSRs in the FMU. Roughly 10% of the FMU is dedicated to LSRs.

Site 3: Culvert Delaite Ridge Road (Unit 7434)

A five-foot diameter culvert set at stream level to move small brook under Delaite Ridge Road. This culvert was installed +-2001 and met BMP standards at the time, but was not set into the stream bottom. Confirmed the accuracy of the Road Maintenance

http://www.fsc.org/

http://www.scsglobalservices.com/



Application in ARC Explorer. Discussion of stream crossing mapping project in partnership with ENGO.

Site 4: Sludge Dump Road (Unit 7431)

This LEVEL road was recently graded and meets BMPs. Confirmed the accuracy of the Road Maintenance Application in ARC Explorer.

Site 5: MH07431 Harvest Unit Completed irregular shelterwood harvest with wildlife trees retained. A wet drainage had been protected with temporary skidder bridge sections augmented with pulpwood at each end. Post-harvest the bridge and wood were removed and the site seeded.

Site 6: Special Site within MH07431 Harvest Unit

During sale layout a tree with hawk’s nest was identified. Planning forester determine it was a sharp-shinned hawk and appropriate buffers were set, including inner no-harvest (50-meter radius) and outer buffer (100-meter radius) with no harvest activity from mid-March to mid-August.

Site 7: Lane Brook Road Lane Brook Road is a main artery built to high standards that straightens and widens the previous road. Alignment, location, and drainage provisions are consistent with Maine BMPs.

Site 8: Arch Culvert, Lane Brook Road (Unit 7278)

This recently-installed 12-foot dome arch culvert has concrete footings and cinder block abutments. The stream bed is natural.

Site 9: Unit 7278 4-year old stand planted in 2013: 45% white spruce, 45% red spruce and 10% white pine. Retention islands seen on map and in field.

Site 10: Greenlaw Stream Bridge (Unit 7278)

This 45-foot long bridge has concrete footings and cinder block abutments supporting 4 very large I-beams. The stream bed is natural. Discussion of stream crossing upgrade costs, expected lifespan, and return on investment.

Site 11: Umcolcus Lake Road This secondary access road is well-designed and maintained and meets Maine BMPs.

Site 12: Decommissioned road segment and removed culvert (Unit 7278)

Because of unsafe slopes and road alignment the road was decommissioned and the culvert removed. Approaches to the stream were graded and seeded, and road segments closest to new roads were blocked, soil loosened, and trees transplanted. Discussion on stream/road projects, salmonid restoration, and partnerships.

Site 13: Cut Lake Late Successional Pine-Hemlock (Unit 7267)

An eagle nest in the Great Pond Zone (late successional conifer area) and Umcolcus Lake were buffered from the harvest area.

Site 14: Uphill side of road (Cut Lake, Unit 7267)

Irregular Shelterwood and sale boundary at steep portion. Closely reviewed remaining stand containing sapling and small-pole size yellow birch, sugar and red maple, and other hardwood species that comprise most of residual stand. 15-30 bunches of felled spruce-fir were left behind on top of the hill and undetected during harvest closeout.

Site 15: End of road toward lake (Cut Lake; (MH07267)

Review of harvesting and buffers in the portion of the stand closest to the lake. Discussed and observed the benefits of the Mechanized Processor System (MPS: feller-buncher, processor, forwarder) including tops and slash distributed across harvest area



and better control of felling and bunching to minimize damage. Residual stand similar to portion of stand described previously.

Site 16: Cut Lake Mechanical Site Preparation, Unit 7267

Overview of mechanical and chemical site preparation options prior to planting spruce and other conifer species, as well as for post-planting release. Site was sprayed with a mix of glyphosate, imazypr, and sulfometuron methyl followed by mechanical chopping.

Site 17: Planting Site, Chemical Site Preparation (Unit 7199)

Northwest side of St. Croix Road on left side of spur road at 2-mile point: Previous stand was clear-cut using whole tree harvesting with on-site chipping. Chemical site preparation completed in July 2018. No mechanical site preparation needed prior to planting with red and white spruce.

Site 18: Planting Site, Chemical Site Preparation (Unit 7223)

Northeast side of St. Croix Road on right side of spur road at 2-mile point: Previous stand was clear-cut without removal of biomass. Chemical site preparation completed in July 2018. Mechanical site preparation will be needed prior to planting with red and white spruce.

Site 19: 12-Year Old Planted Stand at 2-mile point St. Croix Road (Unit 7199)

South side of St. Croix Road at 2-mile point: 12-year old stand planted with 2,200 trees/hectare that will be receiving a cleaning to remove volunteer hardwoods and some volunteer fir trees, and space stems to 1,800 trees/hectare.

Site 20: Planting Site, Chemical Site Preparation (4-mile, St. Croix Road, Unit 7223)

4-mile point St. Croix Road: Clear-cut harvest site with little slash; had retention islands. When assessed in June 2018 decision was made not to apply herbicides. Site was disk-trenched and is ready for planting during May or early June 2019.

Date: October 24, 2018 Blackstone District / Sites Visited

Activities / Notes

Ashland, Maine Office Overview of unit’s land base and forest and land management programs.

Site 1: Rocky Brook Road, 24-mile, Unit 6603 (Meister)

120-yr old late seral reserve (LSR) consisting of mixed wood on slope adjacent to fish-bearing stream. Site identified through gap assessment of potential LSRs lacking representation on the landscape. Discussion of management and conservation options, including low-impact harvesting.

Site 2: Culvert Replacement, Rocky Brook Road, Unit 6578 (Ferrucci)

A four-foot diameter culvert was installed in 2018 to replace an undersized culvert. Culverts are sized at 20% larger than needed for the predicted 100-year flood. Culvert has natural bottom material, and is protected with stone rip-rap, with slope well-vegetated, having been seeded with the “Maine DOT seed mix”.

Site 3A: Rocky Brook Road (Ferrucci)

Traveled extensively on and observed this upgraded main access road. Surface is 25-feet wide, crowned, and regularly graded. Roads are graded when log-truck speeds indicate the need. This road was upgraded to replace winding portions or unsafe crossings as part of a major “road straightening” program still underway on other roads in the ownership. All ditches, turnouts, cross-drain culverts and bridges observed were functioning per Maine BMPs.



Site 3B: Somatic Planting Site, 28-mile mark, Rocky Brook Road: Unit 6844 (Ferrucci)

Somatic Embryo Planting Test Site

Site 4: Unit 6838 (both auditors together for rest of day)

Road repair due to box-culvert collapse that was detected October 27, 2018. Repair and upgrades were done in summer 2018, which included raising the road bed, cleaning the ditches, and installation of two 18” diameter culverts and cross-drains.

Site 5: Unit 6838 Inspection of 70-acre clear-cut unit adjacent to recent road repair. Some water was draining off the site into a ditch at the confluence of two skid trails. However, the area meets BMPs and internal guidelines. Discussed stand history: post-budworm stand natural regeneration 1980+- thinned but to high stocking in 1995. Based on evaluation showing poor live-crown ratios prescribed 2017 clear-cut, with retention islands. Has been disk-trenched and will be planted in the spring of 2019.

Site 6: Unit 6838 Clear-cut block within unit that has been site-prepared by chaining, breaking up slash and allowing improved access for planters and improved planting microsites for planting. No herbicide needed.

Site 7: Unit 6838 Hardwood block within unit. Target basal area was 60-80 sq. ft. Objective was to leave higher quality hardwood for re-entry after 25-30 years. Observed little to no residual stand damage and retention of vigorous, well-formed individual trees. Slash was well-distributed.

Site 8: St. Francis Road Traveled extensively on and observed this upgraded main access road that has been straightened to replace winding portions or unsafe crossings. Surface is 25-feet wide, crowned, and regularly graded. All ditches, turnouts, cross-drain culverts and bridges observed were functioning per Maine BMPs.

Site 9: Jacques Ouelette Road Secondary main road with 20-22-foot-wide surface. Road is built and maintained to Maine BMP standards.

Site 10: Connor Loop Road Road meets Maine BMP standards. Site 11: Active Flail-chipping Operation (MPB) implementing the Irregular Shelterwood Prescription, Unit 6840

Meister: interview with logging contractor. Ferrucci: Interviewed processor operator and then observed the MPB harvesting method. The trees are felled with a feller-buncher and then processed “in the box”, with hardwood stems separated from tops that are piled for later clean-chipping. Softwood stems are whole-tree processed closer to the logging road. Assessed pre-harvest and post-harvest stand conditions, determining that the harvest system is well-matched to stand condition and silvicultural goals. Residual consists of areas with good growing-stock saplings and small pole stems (yellow birch, maple, clean beech) and more open areas suited to regeneration.

Site 12: St. Francis, 4-mile (Unit 6197)

Inspection of active 37-acre white spruce commercial thinning operation. White spruce was planted in 1994 and had PCT treatment in 2003. FME staff discussed thinning objectives and how changing markets have led to updates to the planting and thinning regime. Interview with logging contractor.



Site 13: St. Francis, 2-mile (Unit 6197)

Inspection of recent culvert replacement. New culvert is 8-ft. in diameter and 70-ft. long. Culvert was placed at the proper depth and grade. Observed use of riprap and straw to protect site, as well as cross-drains to keep water away from culvert.

Date: October 25, 2018 Fort Kent District / Sites Visited

Activities / notes

FME office, Fort Kent, ME (Meister)

Staff interviews, and document and record review.

Site 1: Wallagrass Road (All sites Ferrucci)

Portions of this road are being widened and straightened to improve safety and traffic speeds. Observed portions where roadside brush has been cut to “daylight” the road. One sloping portion has some surface and ditch erosion, appearing to be from recent rains.

Site 2: Wallagrass Bridge This major road bridge was rebuilt in 2005 and meets Maine BMPs. The bolted-together abutment is topped with wood on which rest 3 large steel I-beams, allowing the bridge to flex. The deck, running boards, and railings are wooden. ATVs have been ridden off the road along the bridge and are fording the stream. A sign is posted to discourage this, but company is considering blocking with boulders that might stop ATVs but allow foot traffic for fishing the stream section here. Discussed management of ATV use.

Site 3: Decommissioning of part of Wallagrass Road at the Carter Brook Crossing

This portion of Wallagrass Road had been abandoned over ten years ago, with the steel culvert (old tanker car with ends removed) left in place and road being used by ATVs. A heavy rainstorm in 2017 was reported by ATV club and entered into the road maintenance database as a safety and environmental hazard. In August 2018 the culvert was removed, the stream banks graded, seeded, and stabilized with large rocks. The road approaches have been blocked with several large, deep berms on each side, diverting water to adjacent forest and blocking vehicle access. Signs stating “Road Closed” are posted at each end, with no sign of ATV use.

Site 4: Block 6312 This 70-acre block was cut September 2018. The prescription of multiple entry selection was implemented successfully with the MHS (harvester forwarder cut-to-length) system. Specifications for trail width (12 feet) and spacing (65 feet between centers) were met, and residual stems are undamaged and free-to-grow.

Site 5: Theriault Road Portions are built to main road standard (25 feet wide surface) and other portions are not. All portions meet Maine BMPs.

Site 6: Block 6520A Recently completed (trucking still ongoing) 40% removal harvest in a cedar-dominated riparian zone stand. Soils are peaty-muck and were wet at time of harvest and when audited. Some moderate rutting and deeper punched in ruts were observed, but with no soil movement nor erosion, and all well outside of 50-foot stream buffer. This disturbance will provide some mineral soil for cedar regeneration.



Site 7: General Observations of Landscape Aspects of the Silviculture and Management

During return drive with the district’s planning forester the auditor observed the results of the management program at the landscape scale. The forests observed are a diverse intermixture of planted softwood stands, naturally-regenerated softwood- dominated mixed wood, hardwood dominated stands with a modest softwood component, heavily cut hardwood stands for beech treatment, and lightly cut selection system hardwood stands generally dominated by hard maple. The mixture of many different treatments at several scales have developed a diverse forest managed to resist budworm and to respond to challenges of beech bark disease. This forest is clearly productive, and generally quite visually-appealing except when close to blocks with recent clear-cuts or beech dominated, poor-quality hardwood stands.

2.2 Evaluation of Management Systems

SCS deploys interdisciplinary teams with expertise in forestry, social sciences, natural resource economics, and other relevant fields to assess an FME’s conformance to FSC standards and policies. Evaluation methods include reviewing documents and records, interviewing FME personnel and contractors, implementing sampling strategies to visit a broad number of forest cover and harvest prescription types, observing implementation of management plans and policies in the field, and collecting and analyzing stakeholder input. When there is more than one team member, each member may review parts of the standards based on their background and expertise. On the final day of an evaluation, team members convene to deliberate the findings of the assessment jointly. This involves an analysis of all relevant field observations, interviews, stakeholder comments, and reviewed documents and records. Where consensus among team members cannot be achieved due to lack of evidence, conflicting evidence or differences of interpretation of the standards, the team is instructed to report these in the certification decision section and/or in observations.

3. Changes in Management Practices ☒ There were no significant changes in the management and/or harvesting methods that affect the FME’s conformance to the FSC standards and policies. ☐ Significant changes occurred since the last evaluation that may affect the FME’s conformance to FSC standards and policies (describe):

4. Results of Evaluation

4.1 Definitions of Major CARs, Minor CARs and Observations

Major CARs: Major nonconformances, either alone or in combination with nonconformances of all other applicable indicators, result (or are likely to result) in a fundamental failure to achieve the objectives of the relevant FSC Criterion given the uniqueness and fragility of each forest resource. These are corrective actions that must be resolved or closed out before a certificate can be awarded. If Major CARs arise after an operation is certified, the



timeframe for correcting these nonconformances is typically shorter than for Minor CARs. Certification is contingent on the certified FME’s response to the CAR within the stipulated time frame.

Minor CARs: These are corrective action requests in response to minor nonconformances, which are typically limited in scale or can be characterized as an unusual lapse in the system. Most Minor CARs are the result of nonconformance at the indicator-level. Corrective actions must be closed out within a specified time period of award of the certificate.

Observations: These are subject areas where the evaluation team concludes that there is conformance, but either future nonconformance may result due to inaction or the FME could achieve exemplary status through further refinement. Action on observations is voluntary and does not affect the maintenance of the certificate. However, observations can become CARs if performance with respect to the indicator(s) triggering the observation falls into nonconformance.

4.2 History of Findings for Certificate Period FM

Principle Cert/Re-cert Evaluation

1st Annual Evaluation

2nd Annual Evaluation

3rd Annual Evaluation

(None issued)

4th Annual Evaluation

P1 P2 P3 Minor 3.3.a

P4 OBS 4.1.c P5 OBS 5.4.b OBS 5.3.a P6 OBS 6.3.a.1; OBS 6.3.d;

OBS 6.4.b; OBS 6.9.b OBS 6.5.d; OBS 6.9.b

P7 Minor 7.1.b, 7.1.c, and 7.1.e

OBS 7.1.i; OBS 7.2.a.

P8 P9 P10 COC for FM OBS 2.3 Trademark Group Other

4.3 Existing Corrective Action Requests and Observations NA – no findings issued in 2017.



4.4 New Corrective Action Requests and Observations Finding Number: 2018.1

Select one: Major CAR Minor CAR Observation FMU CAR/OBS issued to (when more than one FMU): Deadline Pre-condition to certification/recertification

3 months from Issuance of Final Report 12 months or next regularly scheduled audit (surveillance or re-evaluation) Observation – response is optional Other deadline (specify):

FSC Indicator: FSC-US indicator 5.3.a. Non-Conformity (or Background/ Justification in the case of Observations): Utilization and log sorting on most sites visited was excellent. No merchantable material was observed left behind with the exception of one area on the Cut Lake harvest block. Per the FME personnel’s estimation, 15-30 bunches of spruce-fir were left behind on top of the hill. There are a number of potential root-causes, including difficult terrain and visibility and lack of communication between work crews, among others. Nevertheless, the material is still salvageable as confirmed through observation of the logs and since the harvest was closed less than a month ago. In addition to normal harvest closeout review processes that could have detected the material left behind and opening an incident in the EMS now that the area has been detected, FME staff have access to a new phone app that can be used for several analyses. FME staff showed that the mobile phone app has a map of actual trail routes taken, as recorded by each piece of harvesting equipment’s GPS. Staff stated that current analysis on the phone may be limited due to limited color schemes and superposition of multiple points taken throughout harvest (i.e., repeated use of the same trail by the same piece of equipment). There may be an opportunity to create a simple query to detect areas where the patterns of use of trails by the forwarders may not be consistent with use patterns of harvester. Corrective Action Request (or Observation): Management practices should be employed to minimize the loss and/or waste of harvested forest products. FME response (including any evidence submitted)

December 2018: Current technology needs to be revised by IT to allow supervisors the ability to access machine track files remotely on their phone. Today, multiple steps and repeated file management are required by supervisors to perform harvester vs forwarder comparisons. A request will be submitted to IT for options on how to improve workflow and minimize additional hands on steps for supervisors that are currently required to perform this process. As a backup, until the technology gap can be bridged, supervisors will compare forwarder track files to the block polygons to identify potentially missed area and follow the existing EMS process.

SCS review December 2018: SCS will evaluate the FME’s full response at the next audit. Status of CAR: Closed

Upgraded to Major Other decision (refer to description above)

X

X



5. Stakeholder Comments

In accordance with SCS protocols, consultation with key stakeholders is an integral component of the evaluation process. Stakeholder consultation takes place prior to, concurrent with, and following field evaluations. Distinct purposes of such consultation include:

To solicit input from affected parties as to the strengths and weaknesses of the FME’s management, relative to the standard, and the nature of the interaction between the FME and the surrounding communities.

To solicit input on whether the forest management operation has consulted with stakeholders regarding identifying any high conservation value forests (HCVFs).

Stakeholder consultation activities are organized to give participants the opportunity to provide comments according to general categories of interest based on the three FSC chambers, as well as the SCS Interim Standard, if one was used.

5.1 Stakeholder Groups Consulted

Principal stakeholder groups are identified based upon results from past evaluations, lists of stakeholders from the FME under evaluation, and additional stakeholder contacts from other sources. Stakeholder groups who are consulted as part of the evaluation include FME management and staff, consulting foresters, contractors, lease holders, adjacent property owners, local and regionally-based social interest and civic organizations, purchasers of logs harvested on FME forestlands, recreational user groups, tribal members and/or representatives, members of the FSC National Initiative, members of the regional FSC working group, FSC International, local and regionally-based environmental organizations and conservationists, and forest industry groups and organizations, as well as local, state, and federal regulatory agency personnel and other relevant groups.

5.2 Summary of Stakeholder Comments and Evaluation Team Responses

The table below summarizes the major comments received from stakeholders and the assessment team’s response. Where a stakeholder comment has triggered a subsequent investigation during the evaluation, the corresponding follow-up action and conclusions from SCS are noted below.

☐ FME has not received any stakeholder comments from interested parties as a result of stakeholder outreach activities during this annual evaluation. Stakeholder Comment SCS Response Rates are comparable to other places I could work. The Proforma system is good.

SCS reviewed the Proforma system and found that it considers several variables based on input from harvesting contractors, manufacturers, and other sources of data. Through regular check-ins with contractors recorded on reporting sheets, the FME evaluates the need to update input data regularly.



6. Certification Decision The certificate holder has demonstrated continued overall conformance to the applicable Forest Stewardship Council standards. The SCS annual evaluation team recommends that the certificate be sustained, subject to subsequent annual evaluations and the FME’s response to any open CARs.

Yes ☒ No ☐

Comments:

7. Annual Data Update ☒ No changes since previous evaluation.

☐ Information in the following sections has changed since previous evaluation.

☐ Name and Contact Information ☐ FSC Sales Information ☐ Scope of Certificate ☐ Non-SLIMF FMUs ☐ Social Information

☐ Pesticide and Other Chemical Use ☐ Production Forests ☐ FSC Product Classification ☐ Conservation & High Conservation Value Areas ☐ Areas Outside of the Scope of Certification

Name and Contact Information

Organization name

Irving Woodlands, LLC (IWLLC)

Contact person Scott MacDougall Address PO Box 240

Fort Kent, ME 04743-0240 United States of America

Telephone 506-632-7777 Fax 506-632-4421 e-mail [email protected] Website www.jdirving.com

FSC Sales Information

☒ FSC Sales contact information same as above. FSC salesperson Address Telephone

Fax e-mail Website

Scope of Certificate

Certificate Type ☒ Single FMU ☐ Multiple FMU

☐ Group SLIMF (if applicable)

☐ Small SLIMF certificate

☐ Low intensity SLIMF certificate

☐ Group SLIMF certificate # Group Members (if applicable)


http://www.jdirving.com/



Number of FMUs in scope of certificate 1 Geographic location of non-SLIMF FMU(s) Latitude & Longitude: 47.221541o, -68.755697o Forest zone ☐ Boreal ☒ Temperate

☐ Subtropical ☐ Tropical

Total forest area in scope of certificate which is: Units: ☒ ha or ☐ ac privately managed 519,000 ha state managed 0 community managed 0

Number of FMUs in scope that are: less than 100 ha in area 100 - 1000 ha in area 1000 - 10 000 ha in area

more than 10 000 ha in area 1

Total forest area in scope of certificate which is included in FMUs that: Units: ☒ ha or ☐ ac are less than 100 ha in area 0 are between 100 ha and 1000 ha in area 0 meet the eligibility criteria as low intensity SLIMF FMUs

0

Division of FMUs into manageable units: The forestlands have also been grouped geographically into five economic zones that are used to guide transportation and potential silvicultural investments decisions; the zones include Allagash, Blackstone, Estcourt, Oakfield and Rocky Brook.

Social Information

Number of forest workers (including contractors) working in forest within scope of certificate (differentiated by gender): Male workers: 590 woodlands and mills Female workers: 47 Number of accidents in forest work since previous evaluation:

Serious: 0 Fatal: 0

Pesticide and Other Chemical Use

☐ FME does not use pesticides. Commercial name of pesticide / herbicide

Active ingredient

Quantity applied since previous evaluation (kg or lbs.)

Total area treated since previous evaluation (ha or ac)

Reason for use

Rodeo Glyphosate 3692.3 gals 7221 ac Release Accord XRTII Glyphosate 2110 gals 2577 ac Site prep Arsenal AC Imazapyr 325.87 gals 9798 ac Release/site

prep Oust XP Sulfometuron

methyl 650.68 lbs. 9221 ac Release/site

prep



Production Forests

Timber Forest Products Units: ☒ ha or ☐ ac Total area of production forest (i.e. forest from which timber may be harvested)

490,600

Area of production forest classified as 'plantation' 0 Area of production forest regenerated primarily by replanting or by a combination of replanting and coppicing of the planted stems

32,524 6.6%

Area of production forest regenerated primarily by natural regeneration, or by a combination of natural regeneration and coppicing of the naturally regenerated stems

458,076 93.4%

Silvicultural system(s) Area under type of management

Even-aged management 5-year averages 2013 - 2017

Clearcut (clearcut size range ) 22% Shelterwood 50% Other: 4%

Uneven-aged management Individual tree selection 24% Group selection Other:

☐ Other (e.g. nursery, recreation area, windbreak, bamboo, silvo-pastoral system, agro-forestry system, etc.)

Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs) Area of forest protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for the production of NTFPs or services

0

Other areas managed for NTFPs or services 0 Approximate annual commercial production of non-timber forest products included in the scope of the certificate, by product type

Unknown, but relatively minor

Species in scope of joint FM/COC certificate: (Scientific / Latin Name and Common / Trade Name) Red spruce, Picea rubens Black spruce, Picea mariana White spruce, Picea glauca Norway spruce, Picea abies Balsam fir, Abies balsamea Hemlock, Tsuga canadensis Northern white cedar, Thuja occidentalis Eastern white pine, Pinus strobus Red pine, Pinus resinosa White ash, Fraxinus americana Black ash, Fraxinus nigra American beech, Fagus grandifolia White birch, Betula papyrifera Yellow birch, Betula alleghaniensis Red maple, Acer rubrum Sugar maples, Acer saccharum



FSC Product Classification

Conservation and High Conservation Value Areas

Conservation Area Units: ☒ ha or ☐ ac Total amount of land in certified area protected from commercial harvesting of timber and managed primarily for conservation objectives (includes both forested and non-forested lands).*

97,800 hc total Conservation Forest 7,841 hc Unique Area (this is an internal designation and is included in the total area reported)

*Note: Total conservation and HCV areas may differ since these may serve different functions in the FME’s management system. Designation as HCV may allow for active management, including commercial harvest. Conservation areas are typically under passive management, but may undergo invasive species control, prescribed burns, non-commercial harvest, and other management activities intended to maintain or enhance their integrity. In all cases, figures are reported by the FME as it pertains local laws & regulations, management objectives, and FSC requirements.

High Conservation Value Forest / Areas Units: ☒ ha or ☐ ac Code HCV Type Description & Location Area HCV1 Forests or areas containing globally, regionally

or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia).

HCV2 Forests or areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

HCV3 Forests or areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems.

Yanketuladi St Francis Floodplain Orchard Bog Cross Lake Fen

62 283 216 250

Northern red oak, Quercus rubra Big leaf aspen, Populus grandidentata Trembling aspen, Populus tremuloides

Timber products Product Level 1 Product Level 2 Species W1 Rough Wood W1.1 Roundwood (logs) All W3 Wood in chips or particles W3.1 Wood Chips All Non-Timber Forest Products Product Level 1 Product Level 2 Product Level 3 and Species



HCV4 Forests or areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control).

Long Lake Smelt Fishery Long Lake Slopes Chase Lakes

202 174 519

HCV5 Forests or areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health).

HCV6 Forests or areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities).

Total area of forest classified as ‘High Conservation Value Forest / Area’ 1707

Areas Outside of the Scope of Certification (Partial Certification and Excision)

☐ N/A – All forestland owned or managed by the applicant is included in the scope.

☒ Applicant owns and/or manages other FMUs not under evaluation.

☐ Applicant wishes to excise portions of the FMU(s) under evaluation from the scope of certification. Explanation for exclusion of FMUs and/or excision:

The parent company of Irving Woodlands LLC (IWLLC) is J.D. Irving Limited, corporately located in New Brunswick, Canada. J.D. Irving Limited owns 3.2 million acres of forestland in Canada and Maine. In total, these lands are divided into five operating districts, four of which are located in Canada. Only those lands under the control of the JD Irving Maine operating district within the State of Maine are within the scope of this certification evaluation; Canadian lands are outside the scope of this certificate. The rationale for partial certification is due largely to differing regional standards between the Maritime and Northeast regions. The company does not at this time believe that the Maritime standard, which encompasses the balance of its ownership, is an appropriate normative standard for industrial/commercial forest management. J.D. Irving has been actively engaged in the Maritime standards development process and remains committed to re-engaging FSC certification in Canada if the Maritime standard undergoes revision through a multi-stakeholder and transparent process. The balance of the ownership is Canadian lands which are managed under the same system as the Maine Woodlands. Because of this common management system, there are no concerns about the forest management of these non-certified lands in Canada.

Control measures to prevent mixing of certified and non-certified product (C8.3):

The other areas that are not within the scope of this Certificate are located in Canada and are geographically separate from these areas located in Maine.

Description of FMUs excluded from, or forested area excised from, the scope of certification: Name of FMU or Stand Location (city, state, country) Size (☒ ha or ☐ ac) JD Irving Canada New Brunswick Canada 728,000 JD Irving Canada Nova Scotia Canada 50,000

Forest Management & Stump-to-Forest Gate Chain-of-Custody Surveillance Evaluation Report | CONFIDENTIAL


surveillance evaluation report template - jdirving.com · po box 240 . fort kent, me 04743 -0240 ....

Documents