Public Comments Invited for State Forest and State Wildlife Lands Re-Certification Effort

[Bill Logue]

I have been asked by DCR to send out the following email to the TSC and AGS. It will also be disseminated through a variety of other email list serves. Please feel free to cut and paste it to other who you believe may be interested.

 

Have a great weekend,

 

Bill

 

 

In April 2009 Scientific Certification Systems (SCS), a certification body accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), was retained by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs to conduct a re-certification evaluation of the 550,000 acres of forest lands managed by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW).  Certification by the FSC is professional acknowledgement that the landowner is practicing responsible forest management that is environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable.  As part of the public participation process, SCS requires public comment on a complete listing of DCR and DFW lands to be included in, and excluded from, the scope of the certification and an explanation of reasons for excluding certain properties.  The public comment period on the lists of lands will be from November 20, 2009 through December 20, 2009.  The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife posted information about this process on October 30, 2009, with an original comment deadline of November 30, 2009, but DFW is extending its comment period through December 20, 2009 for the convenience of people who may want to comment on both DFW and DCR lands. Both agencies are specifically seeking public comments relative to the properties that will be included vs. excluded from the FSC re-certification process.

 

The 2009 re-certification evaluation audit report, which was drafted in March 2009 and was completed in August 2009, can be found at http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/eea/lf/green_certification_report_2009.pdf.  The evaluation report established major conditions that DCR and DFW must comply with before any state forest lands or state wildlife lands can be re-certified.  The audit report determined that only lands with publicly reviewed management plans are eligible for recertification. To comply with this determination, both agencies identified a subset of lands presently eligible for recertification, a subset of lands that can become eligible for certification in the future, and a subset of lands that will not be submitted for certification for various reasons.

 

To view the state forest lands lists with reviewed management plans go to http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/pdf/recertification-west.pdf.  To view state forest lands without reviewed management plans, go to http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/pdf/recertification-east.pdf.  Each list of state lands indicates which properties are eligible/appropriate for re-certification and those that are not.  Comments on the state forest lands lists may be emailed to: fsc.co...@state.ma.us or sent by postal mail to: Bureau of Forestry, Mass. Department of Conservation and Recreation, Box 484, 40 Cold Storage Drive, Amherst, MA  01004.   

 

To view the state wildlife lands lists, go to: http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/habitat/management/bdi/forest_mgt/green_recert_efforts.htm Comments regarding the state wildlife lands lists may be emailed to Mass.W...@state.ma.us, or sent via postal service mail to: "Forest Certification Comment", MassWildlife, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581.

 

 The public comment period is from November 20, 2009 through December 20, 2009.

 

[mandchurley]

I find this very interesting.  DCR has already decided that some properties are elgible for green certification and will be eligible for certification in the future?  So the issue of whether the lands will be certified is not open for discussion by the Forest Futures Visioning Process?   They never intended to listen to our opinion?   And they, not the Forest Vision Process will decide which lands are eligible for green certification, which implies timber harvesting?

 

I thought all of this was a topic of the Forest Futures Visioning Process.  Claudia Hurley

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Forest Futures Advisory Group of Stakeholders" group.
To post to this group, send email to forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to forest-futures-advisory-grou...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/forest-futures-advisory-group-of-stakeholders?hl=.

[Mary Booth]

Maybe this has been discussed already, but what does Green Cert cost? and what are its "benefits" in terms of payback? does it generate money in any way? This should all be 100% transparent. If it's not, there's something majorly wrong.

 

I think since the state is looking for ways to cut the budget, this could be a good place to start.

 

Mary

--

Mary S. Booth, PhD
mbo...@massenvironmentalenergy.org
**********************************************
check out our website:
www.massenvironmentalenergy.org

[mandchurley]

I had some difficulty, but finally was able to open the DCR lists.  Does anyone see anywhere the reasons that some properties are listed as eligible, while others are not?  Does anyone see an explanation of what it means to be eligible?  I am not sure how anyone can make an intelligent comment without that information, have I missed it?.  Claudia

[mandchurley]

Mary,

          I completed a list of bullets for the TSC on why Green certification is not appropriate for public lands.   I will attach that.  I can document statements I have made, and certainly will provide them if asked, but tried to keep it at a manageable length for reading.    I have repeatedly asked for an open and transparent listing of the costs of certification, but have never been given a clear response.   A member of the TSC asked for those same costs on Nov. 10, from Bob O'Connor.  No clear response was given..  In written responses to public input (on the DCR website)  DCR said it cost $120,000 for the first certification and an additional $9,000 for the 2008 audit.   Then in the report from the interviews with the two former chief foresters provided during the forest futures visioning process, it is reported that the same certification cost $400,000.  In both cases they stressed the fact that this is only an accounting of the money paid to Scientific Certification Systems for the services of their assessments and audits. If there are other costs, we have not been told.   Those conflicting figures given from two different sources do not include the money that was allocated to comply with  "conditions" which required capital improvements to facilitate logging. The types of capital improvements that FSC required included access roads into forests, boundary markings, GIS mapping of forest tree inventories, a new fleet of vehicles for the employees of the Bureau of Forestry etc. Those have been estimated to be well over two million dollars.   In some cases these expenditures might be improvements the state should do anyway, but others may have taken funds away from other stewardship responsiblities such as: environmental police,  rangers, park interpreters, proper maintenance of park facilities, park staffing, educational programs, inventories of natural resources, inventories of historical and cultural features of our public lands, providing for an inhouse arborist team to deal with small scale maintenance issues in recreational areas, marketing of our parks/recreational lands to the public and most important:  the completion of the site specific resource management plans for each park, forest and reservation as required by MGL Ch. 21, section 2F.   

 

Timber products from state lands that get the FSC label when the state is certified (it is not right now) presumably can get higher prices and access to markets that seek certified wood.  However, in the case of the state, the economic value is equal to the amount received when a timber sale is "sold" to a purchaser of the proposed sale lot.  The state has no control over what happens to the timber from that point forward.    Most of our timber is sent directly to Canada.   Prices that a logger is willing to pay for our state wood have been extremely low, perhaps because of the horrendous market for wood during these difficult times, but the state has been unable to claim that there has been any economic advantage to being green certified.

 

A report on certification:  Forest Certification in North America

 

http://environment.yale.edu/files/biblio/YaleFES-00000148.pdf

Under the subtitle: US certification in Perspective

the report makes this statement:  " Public land managers are less interested in market opportunities associated with certification.  Instead they value the outside verification of their land management practices which can buffer criticism from a divided public."

I have recently written that EOEEA has not made it clear to the general public that the state is not currently certified, nor has it openly discussed the reasons why it lost certification.  I go so far as to claim that EOEEA wants to be certified for the "image" it provides for the state forestry program and is downplaying the problems that led to the loss of certification.   I remember well the days when I was opposing the timber harvest proposed at Robinson State Park.  The Chief Forester said, "you don't have to worry, we are green certified".  Believe me, there was plenty to worry about.  During the first five year certification period, the state received glowing reports from the auditing company.   That's when citizens began to point out serious problems.  Stakeholder criticism for the 2009 assessment period was fierce.  We contend that the FSC auditors were literally "shamed" into withdrawing the state certification to protect their own credibility.  To think of paying an auditing company to oversee our forestry and find that adequate monitoring by them depends on citizens bringing the problems to the auditors attention is mind boggling.

FSC certification will be a topic before the Technical Steering Committee on Tuesday (8 - 11a.m.) .  It is mystifying that EOEEA/DCR has gone ahead with detailed work to conform to FSC conditions when the TSC has not thoroughly analyzed whether in fact FSC certification is appropriate for our public lands, and if so, which ones.   We should all be in the audience of the Tuesday meeting. And we should all be listening for answers to these questions.  Claudia

[Bill Logue]

Claudia,

 

As this has been of significant concern to you, is there a concise document I can share with the TSC before the meeting next week and I would recommend that they ask you to join in on the FSC portion of the discussion during the meeting. Would that be OK with you.

 

Bill

[mandchurley]

Bill,

       I would be very happy to share with the TSC anything at all that I can during the discussion of Green Certification on Tuesday.   I can come prepared to participate in that portion of your meeting, and I thank you for suggesting that I could be helpful.    I submitted twelve bullet points to the TSC that basically contend that FSC is inappropriate for public lands in general, and Massachusetts public lands specifically.  After the last TSC meeting, both Andy Finton and Matt Burne asked me a few questions about what I had included in that list.  I had tried to make that set of bullet points concise, but Matt suggested that the comments needed context in order to be of benefit to him.   I submitted several pieces of additional information to Matt at the end of last week and over the weekend to try to help.  I think those bullet points make general statements, that if reviewed could raise some questions among the TSC members.  Would it be possible for them to review those comments and prepare some questions to ask me?  There are a lot of detailed examples that could accompany those bullet points both from the initial certification period, 2004- 2009, and the April 2009 report.    If you want to look over what I have already submitted  and ask me to expand on any of them, or make any of them more specific, I could do that.  I can also refer to some of the points made in the documents that Tom Walker supplied to the TSC that might help in their determinations about green certification and our experience with it.  I think the details are complex, and it is a lot to expect members of the TSC to have read all the documents and the Northeast Standard.  I think the fact that I have taken such an interest in it is why it is significant to me.  Truthfully it is how the state lands are managed that is most important to me  Whether green certification is selected to oversee that management may be wasteful, unneccessary and inappropriate, but that is secondary.   I believe you have that set of bullet points which is where the discussion could start.  if not, I have attached them again.    Claudia Hurley . 

[Alexandra]

A note to claudia:  Judy Eiseman needs digestible  short material on the certification denial for a meeting next week.Apparently the party line at some stae offices is, the whole denial was just clerical, not substantive.  Can you send her something pronto?  alexandra

[mandchurley]

The loss of certification is substantive.  The state was not recertified for two very serious non compliance issues.  At least 17 other conditions have been placed on the state with deadlines for compliance.

 

During the first five year certification period, the state was given five years to complete site specific management plans for each of its properties.  As the years went by, it became quite clear that the state would not be able to meet this requirement.  FSC certification reduced the requirement, midway through the five year period,to requiring only much more general district management plans.  Neither the DCR Bureau of Forestry, nor the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife were able to complete these more general plans for all of their districts. In spite of this lack of compliance, the state maintained its certification throughout the first five year certification period.  There were many citizen and stakeholder complaints about forestry performance during that period, but the auditing company continued to declare that the state of Massachusetts was in "overall compliance with the Northeast Standard" (the set of principles and criteria by which an FSC certified client is judged).  The last official audit for the first five year period was November, 2008.   The end of the first certification period was April 10, 2009.   At that time the state was audited for "recertification".

 

Citizen input and comments to the auditing team in April, 2009 were fierce.  Multiple examples of non compliance with both FSC principles and criteria, and MA state laws and best managment practices were provided to the auditing team.   The report that became available in August, 2009 declared that the state should "not be awarded FSC-endorsed forest managment certification as a "well-Managed Forest" until Major Corrective Action Requests are duly closed."

 

One of the major reasons why the state was not recertified was that it had not completed the district plans required under the first certificate.

Rather than wait until it could complete district management plans for all districts, the state agreed to apply for "partial certification" for the DCR BOF and DFW lands that did have approved district plans.  This reduced or "partial" certification must be explained to the public, with public consultation, and documentation of it before a new certificate can be issuesd.

 

Both DCR and DFW must list every property that is currently eligible for certification, properties they hope might eventually be eligible for certification, and also list any properties that will not be included in the "scope" of green certification, and provide good reasons to the green certification people why certain properties will not be in the scope before they can be certified.  The state must seek public input on their decisions about these properties.

 

Even the lands with approved district management plans can not be certified until another major condition is satisfied:  All agencies (DCR BOF, DFW, and the Department of Watershed Protection lands (DWSP) must complete monitoring of all operations and provide summaries to the public.  All forestry that is currently being done, and has been done must be reviewed for how it relates to the goals of the plans.  The work must contain reference to all of the monitoring criteria of Principle 8 of the Northeast Standard.

 

Once these two major corrective actions are complied with, a certificate can be issued for the reduced acreage, but the state is still required to work toward compliance with multiple other "minor corrective action requests".  In fact, many people find these "minor" corrective action requests quite substantial.  It could be argued that because there are serious questions relative to  the forestry performance of the agencies, the state should not be certified until these problems are addressed as well.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.  The state can be certified while it addesses the following concerns:

 

Here is an outline of those problems and a brief description of what the state must do about it....

From the April 2009 report from Scientific Certification Systems, the certifying company for FSC green certification.

 http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/eea/lf/green_certification_report_2009.pdf

CAR 2009.1 (page 56)  DCR leadership can not call a real or defacto moratorium on cutting on lands with management plans without explaining all of its reasons to SCS

CAR 2009.5 (page 56)  commit resources to marking and maintaining boundaries, with progress goal of 10% per year

CAR 2009.6 (page 56) complete a road and trail inventory, set targets for accomplishing identified road work/ priorities

CAR 2009.7 (page 57)  adequately address and plan for proper consultation with tribal representatives

CAR 2009.8 (page 57)  develop a formal training program for new employees and ensure continuing education for existing employees so theyare  current with FSC requirements and contemporary silviclutural systems

CAR 2009.9 (page 57) identify resources (funding and staff) for BOF and DFW to support forest management

CAR 2009.10 (page 58 BOF and DWSP must develop and implement formal planning measures to assess the advance regeneration, and protect it in even aged regeneration treatments.   Have specific enforceable measures for protecting advanced regeneration during logging operations

CAR 2009.11 (page 58) BOF must address landing conditions. Problem of excess woody debris on log landings must be addressed... training must be initiated as needed on proper landing conditions

CAR 2009.12 (page 59) BOF and DWSP develop and implement standards for structural retention for even aged regeneration cuttings in large openings.  Standards must incorporate guidelines for wildlife managment and conservation of rare species and ecological requirements for regeneration

CAR 2009.13 (page 59)  DWSP has not completed an adequate environmental assessment for clearcutting healthy mature forests to create early successional habitat.  DWSP must conduct an analysis including the disturbance history of the landscape, and consider the range of species potentially impacted among all representative seral stages, include biodiversity experts,...results must be incorporated into future silvicultural prescriptions for intact mature forest stands.

CAR 2009. 14 (page 60  BOF and DWSP shall immediately halt all clearcutting in conifer plantations (including white pine)  until an analysis of the ecological impacts of stand level removal of conifer plantings on conifer dependent species and communities is completed.  include biodiversity experts.  include an independent peer review of a panel of scientists, and incorporate results into planning.

CAR 2009.15 (page 61) expand existing woody debris retention guidelines for wildlife habitat and nutrient cycling/soil productivity.  Guidelines must be measureable, incorporated into contracts.  Training must exist to support the implementation.  (issue elevated due to planned bio-energy facilities)

CAR 2009. 16 (page 61) develop guidelines to protect seeps and springs

CAR 2009. 17 (page 62) BOF cutting plans must contain greater detail about silviculture treatments and ecological conditions of the site

CAR 2009. 18 (page 62) Concern about whether cuts that were not called clearcuts really were clearcuts.   BOF  must complete a legal analysis  of all completed and planned clearcut and shelterwood oversotry removal harvests exceeding 10 acres.  Analysis must be completed by a third party ... identify whether provisions of state law were followed.  Prompted by the fact that completed and planned complete removal of conifer plantations have been labeled shelterwood harvests when in fact they may be clearcuts.

CAR 2009.19 (page 63) BOF must identify and define the ecological goals that will be met through conducing harvests and other treaments in areas identified as reserves. Prompted by lack of clear guidance related to what managment activities are allowed in reserve areas

CAR 2009. 20  employ and monitor measures to maintain or enhance High Conservation Value Forests

In addition to these Corrective Action Requests, there are Nine non binding recommendations:  There are those who would argue that these recommendations should be major conditions for MA public lands:

REC. 2009.1 (page 64) the agencies should conduct an analysis of the burden of providing the public information and responding to freedom of information Act requests and the implications of the policy that accommodates charging fees for these types of requests

                      (I find this one hard to stomach because we can't get information from the agencies unless we make FOIA requests.  This appears to be a suggestion that the public be charged more money for these requests)

REC 2009.2 (page 64)  agency policy should allow for local level staff to attempt to respond to routine requests for information and to attempt to resolve disputes.  There seems to be concern that high level staff, lawyers and administrators have participated in dispute resolutions

REC 2009.3 (page 64) opportunity for a program  for onsite meetings with contractors and employee safety

REC 2009.4 (page 64) BOF should evaluate public input policy for effectiveness and improvement

REC 2009.5 (page 65) finalize the document for invasive plant managment

REC 2009.6 (page 65) track the progress of the proposed OHV regulations, get increased funding, or develop an alternative strategy for managing motorized recreation and associated impacts.

REC 2009.7 (page 65) revise Chapter 132 to better define the establishment cutting and removal cutting steps of the shelterwood method

                       (I must add:   if you can find the Chapter 132 reforms.  They were written almost three years ago and still have not come out for public review)

REC 2009.8 (page 65) "There is an opportunity for the agencies to improve the consideration of aesthetics in treamtnet design and ijmplementation."

                       (I must add:   the fact that aesthetic considerations are relegated to a non binding recommendation for socially significant public lands is unacceptable)

REC 2009.9 (page 66) enhance the description of silviculture systems within the management plans to base the information on forest ecology and resource inventory data.

It is significant that all of the above mentioned concerns requiring conditions and recommendations could not have all developed between the November 2008 final assessment for the first five year certification period and the assessment for recertification in April.   We come to the conclusion that the Green Certification audits were quite forgiving during the first five years.   Stakeholder complaints of violations of both principles and criteria of the Northeast Standard, and of state laws and best managment practices were undoubtedly a factor in the more demanding report in April 2009.     

submitted by Claudia Hurley