Forest Management Public Summary

for

Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks

Certification Code: SW-FM/COC-201 Date of Certification: April 15, 2002

Date of Public Summary: April 2002, updated for 2003

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 65 Bleecker Street, 6th 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 This certification was conducted in collaboration with the following member of the SmartWood Network: Northeast Natural Resource Center/ National Wildlife Federation (NNRC/NWF) 58 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 TEL: (802) 229-0650 FAX: (802) 229-4532 Email: palola@nwf.org

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

ACRONYMS

AAC Annual Allowable Cut ALP Annual Logging Plan CITES Convention on Trade in Endangered Species DBH Diameter at Breast Height DEC Department of Environmental Conservation FMO Forest Management Organization FSC Forest Stewardship Council HCVF High Conservation Value Forest ILO International Labor Organization NIPF Non-Industrial Private Forestland NYLT New York Logger Training OSH Occupation Safety and Health P&C Principles and Criteria of the FSC RCPA Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks RMA Resource Management Act SAF Society of American Foresters SFM Sustainable Forest Management SFMP Sustainable Forest Management Plan TSI Timber Stand Improvement

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. INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of an independent certification assessment conducted by a team of specialists representing the SmartWood Program of the Rainforest Alliance and the Northeast Natural Resource Center of the National Wildlife Federation. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the ecological, economic and social sustainability of the forest management in the Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks certified pool. The purpose of the SmartWood program is to recognize conscientious land stewardship through independent evaluation and certification of forestry practices. Forestry operations that attain SmartWood certification may use the SmartWood label public marketing and advertising.

1. GENERAL SUMMARY

1.1. Name and Contact Information Source Name: Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks Contact Person: Ross Morgan

Address: Post Office Box 27, North Creek, NY 12853 Tel: (518) 251-4257 Fax: (518) 251-5068 E-mail: rcpa.ross@netheaven.com

1.2. General Background

A. Type of operation The Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks (RCPA) is non-profit landowner association that provides oversight and guidance to member landowners who wish to certify their forests through a program called the Sustainable Forestry Project. RCPA has a current membership of 3,000 households. B. Years in operation RCPA was formed in 1990, with the objective of supporting and protecting natural resources, resource-based local economies and communities within the Adirondack Park through outreach, education, research, and advocacy activities.

The Sustainable Forestry Project of the RCPA was initiated in June 2000 to advise landowners and provide technical assistance for achieving and maintaining forest certification among members. There are currently 6,103.3 acres enrolled in the Sustainable Forestry Project. • Date first certified April 15, 2002

• Latitude and longitude of certified operation Latitude 43 degrees 42 minutes North Longitude 74 degrees 00 minutes

1.3. Forest and Management System

A. Forest type and land use history The eleven separate properties originally submitted for certification under the RCPA umbrella are scattered over roughly the eastern quarter of the Adirondack State Park, which is the largest state park in the continental United States. They exhibit a remarkable range of forest types; a brief explanation follows.

The Adirondack Park is around six million acres in size. It is a nearly fifty-fifty mix of state-owned and private land arranged in an uneven, “patchwork quilt” pattern. The area is over 80 percent forested.

The geology and soils within the park (especially the eastern part) are complex, with the possibility of abrupt changes over short distances. There is also considerable elevation range. The shore of Lake Champlain, on the park’s eastern border, is 95 feet above sea level, while the park’s high peaks region, starting only thirteen miles west of the lake, has over forty summits higher than 4,000 feet. Because the area is mountainous, there are 360 degrees of slope aspect possible, often within a small acreage. This all combines to produce vegetation of extreme diversity, ranging from oak-hickory forest along Lake Champlain, through northern hardwoods, pine and boreal conifers, culminating in true arctic tundra on a number of the summits. The Adirondacks may be the only place in the Northeast where you can find a tundra ecosystem less than twenty miles from an oak-hickory one. This natural diversity is made even more complex by the area’s land use history, which includes native American activities, colonial military battles, ginseng harvesting, clearcutting, selective logging, professional forest management, slash fires, tunnel- and strip- mining, stone quarrying, row cropping, livestock pasturing, farmland abandonment and forest succession, with or without additional logging or silviculture in the resulting second- and third-growth forests. Timber harvesting began in the Adirondacks in the mid-1700s, and has continued unabated to the present. There are single Adirondack properties, including at least one subject property, which have experienced nearly all the above-mentioned activities over the past 250 years, and are now covered by forests of high diversity.

The elevations of the subject properties range from 300 feet in the Champlain valley, to over 1,800 feet in the central region of the park. The forest types involved exhibit nearly the full range of what the Adirondacks offer, including oak-hickory, oak-hardwood, oak-pine, hardwood-hemlock, hardwood-pine, white pine, pine-hemlock, northern hardwoods, pioneer hardwoods, swamp hardwoods, northern white cedar, spruce-fir and hardwood-spruce-fir.

B. Size of management unit and area in production forest, conservation, and/or restoration RCPA’s initial submission for certification involves eleven landowners with a total of 6,103.3 acres, with individual properties ranging from 60 to 3,440 acres. In the management plans examined, there was little mention of conservation or restoration areas. Most of the properties submitted for certification appear to have all their forested acreage under, or scheduled for, active forest management. This may be due to the fact that a large percentage of members expressed an interest in enrolling their lands under New York’s forest tax law. This law exempts up to 80% of property taxes on enrolled forestland, but requires every enrolled acre to be actively managed and harvested at some point. There is one 500+ acre member that excluded about 14% of its acreage from management because that area was too mountainous to be harvested. This protected area includes a pitchpine-oak-heath rocky summit that the New York State Natural Heritage Program described as “Community is on a south and southeast–facing , steep, xeric slope, just below and at summit ridge, small, but of high quality, undisturbed.” This landowner is planning to enroll its lands under the forest tax law.

One applicant with about 5,000 acres has reserved hundreds of harvestable acres from any management for reasons of steep gradient, wetlands and open lands. This land is unlikely to be added into the certified pool in the near future as it is not seen as productive forestland. C. Annual allowable cut and/or annual harvest covered by management plan None of the applicant properties has an allowable cut calculation as part of their management plan, although most have a work schedule detailing when certain areas are recommended for harvest or thinning. The largest property, containing 57% of the applicant acreage, is enrolled under the forest tax law, which requires a 15-year work schedule identifying which forest stands will be harvested each year. The law requires this schedule to be certified by state foresters and followed; however, it does not require the calculation of an allowable cut. The above procedures could be considered an area control system, wherein specific areas are thinned or harvested on a time schedule. The remaining 10 properties average 259 acres. FSC guidelines provide that on small ownerships where calculation of sustainable harvest levels is impractical, harvest levels will be based on maintaining or attaining desired forest conditions. Although the largest property has not calculated an allowable cut calculation so far, it has been harvested under a forester’s supervision almost continually since 1976, using a combination of area control and “desired forest conditions” methods. Comparison of periodic timber inventories with harvest records from 1976 to 1998 indicates the operation was sustainable on a merchantable volume basis during that period.

RCPA’s forester is currently developing a monitoring system that can be standardized and used for estimating forest growth and other ecological factors on all member properties, regardless of size. D. General description of details and objectives of the management plan/system All applicant properties have written management plans. Nine of the eleven applicant properties have plans that have been upgraded to the new RCPA management plan format, and the other two are in progress. The existing plans were written by an assortment of foresters over the past few decades, including RCPA’s forester quite recently. They vary considerably in their scope and detail, from minimal to complex. RPCA has developed, and intends to refine, a standardized management plan format that meets FSC requirements. The current format includes maps of a property’s topography, soils and forest stands, as well as aerial photography. There are written sections covering: geology and soils, land use history, owner goals, New York Natural Heritage Program, deed and tax information, road and access system, landowner compliance procedures, wildlife habitat; and silviculture. Silvicultural recommendations are based on a stand-level inventory using the U.S. Forest Service’s NED-1 software program.

RCPA’s stated goal is to implement a standardized forest inventory system and management plan format in order to have all member properties meet all FSC management plan requirements as soon as possible, and it has made an impressive attempt at this in the short time since deciding on FSC certification.

1.4. Environmental and Socioeconomic Context

Regional environmental context Forestlands managed by RCPA fall within the boundaries of the Adirondack Park, which encompasses 6.1 million acres in northeastern New York State. Along with similar lands in the Catskills, the Adirondack Forest Preserve was created within the Adirondack Park in 1885 by an act of the New York State Legislature. Originally consisting of scattered parcels covering about 681,000 acres, the Adirondack Forest Preserve has grown over the past century to include more than 2.6 million acres, which are owned and managed by the State of New York. New York's Constitution states that public lands in the Adirondack Park must never be developed and "...shall be forever kept as wild forest lands." Attempts to weaken the law that established the Adirondack Forest Preserve led the State to amend the New York State Constitution to read: "The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed." The forest stands in the Adirondack Park represent a full range of successional stages, including early succession, sapling, and second-growth even-aged stands, and uneven-aged second growth and old growth. Many lakes and ponds abound throughout the park, as do myriads of riparian zones. The breadth and aggregate acreage of a great variety of habitat types and vegetative species provides a high degree of floral and faunal diversity. Because of the great diversity and associated large acreage of wildlife habitats, the Adirondack Park represents a regional bio-reserve of high value, providing source habitat (habitat of sufficient quality and quantity that attracts and retains populations of individual wildlife species) rather than sink habitat (habitat of high value that attracts individuals of wildlife species which cannot sustain local populations because aggregate acreage is too small). The eleven parcels of forestland constituting lands managed by RCPA are scattered throughout the Adirondack Park: some abut public lands, others abut private parcels. With the exception of one larger holding, the 3,140 acre North Woods Club, RCPA holdings are in the 60-500 acre size. All properties represented lands from which timber had been harvested in the past and were second-growth forest. RCPA lands included lakes, ponds, bogs, beaver-dammed wetlands, and associated riparian zones. None were comprised of old-growth forest, and none had received recent management activities resulting in intentional creation of early succession vegetation. On some of the properties, prior owners had thinned (high-graded) heavily, and the residual stands were sufficiently open to foster development of the grass-herb-shrub layer typical of early succession habitat. Owners of one of the properties maintained approximately 100 acres in a permanent grassland/early succession state: this savanna represented a habitat type rare in the Adirondacks Park and it harbored eastern bluebirds, which among other early succession/savanna birds and mammals likely is rare within the Park. The ultimate

management goal of RCPA is fostering uneven-aged management, which results in a variety of age classes and species composition and high habitat diversity. The Natural Heritage Program of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has identified no threatened, endangered, or sensitive species within lands managed by RCPA but has identified a number of potentially endangered and threatened species within the Adirondack Park. The large and diverse public land holdings within the Adirondack Park buffers the potential for endangerment, as does the permanent protection and prohibition of development of forestland provided by legislation. The Adirondack Park contains several small to medium-sized human communities that depend upon water provided by local watersheds, but larger metropolitan areas farther south (e.g., New York City) obtain water from other watersheds south of the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park contains several rivers in the wild and scenic category for which environmental safeguards are in effect. The predominant forest type is northern hardwood with a preponderance of sugar maple, eastern hemlock, white pine, yellow birch, and aspen with lesser representation of red maple, American beech, black cherry, basswood, and black ash. The Adirondack Park is sufficiently far north that deer form “yards” to survive severe winter weather. Deer yards are usually found in low sheltered areas out of the wind with a continuous conifer cover where food sources are not drifted over with snow and deer can move about freely. Such areas provide important habitat components for white-tailed deer, and the RCPA assessment program includes identification of loci of deer yards and maintenance of the yards. Socioeconomic context Creation of the Adirondack Park was the culmination of a preservation movement that grew out of concern about widespread tree cutting to support the lumber, paper, leather tanning, and iron mining industries in the Adirondacks that began in the 1850's. At the same time, influential New York City merchants feared that continued logging would lead to reduced flows in the Hudson River and Erie Canal, the major upstate transportation corridors of the day. Together they achieved one of the earliest acts of public land preservation in the nation. Today, of the 6 million acres encircled by the Park's boundary, or "blue line," nearly 3.5 million acres are privately owned. Larger timberland tracts, totaling approximately 2.5 million acres, are owned by forest industries and large estates manage for sustainable production of wood products; other ownerships (approximately 1 million acres) are of smaller acreage, non-industrial holdings for which management emphases traditionally favor non-timber resources, primarily wildlife and recreation. Park residents approximate 130,000 people. The lumber and paper industries, tourism, construction and mining are major sources of employment for Park residents. Throughout the park, the state Department of Environmental Conservation maintains more than 2,000 miles of marked trails available for people of all interests and abilities. The Adirondack Park is heavily used for recreation, which is a mainstay of large communities such as Saranac Lake, Lake George, and Lake Placid. Smaller, more isolated communities that do not cater to tourism are impoverished, with high unemployment rates and low pay scales. The development of policies to guide the land management within the Adirondack Park is the responsibility of The Adirondack Park Agency (APA), an independent, bipartisan state agency that strives to balance statewide concerns and the interests of local

governments in the Park. The APA was created by New York State law in 1971. The legislation defined the structure and functions of the Agency and authorized the Agency to develop two plans for lands within the Adirondack Park. The State Land Master Plan details management guidelines for the approximately 2.5 million acres of public lands in the Park, while the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan regulates land use and development activities on the 3.5 million acres of privately owned lands The APA also administers the State's Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act for private lands adjacent to designated rivers in the Park, and the State's Freshwater Wetlands Act within the Park. The Agency Board is composed of 11 members, eight of whom are New York State residents. Five of the members must reside within the boundaries of the Park. For further details on the history and functions of the APA, contact or visit the references cited in Appendix B. Traditional forestry management practices, including thinning, final harvest removals, and timber stand improvement are practiced on the larger private forestlands. Regeneration is by natural seeding rather than by planted nursery stock. As is typical elsewhere, a majority (85%+) of the smaller, non-industrial private forestlands (NIPFs)is managed without input from professional foresters and goals (if any) are vague and short-term. Many simply relate to maintaining forests in good condition with minimal management (limited TSI) and avoidance of final harvest removals. Some of these NIPFs have been in the same family ownership for decades and generations, others have been more recently purchased by owners whose management philosophies favor preservation and enhancement of ecological conditions rather than management for commercial harvest. As far as is known, there are no challenges or other legal actions pending concerning indigenous peoples within the Adirondack Park or within lands managed by RCPA.

1.5. Products Produced and Chain of custody

A. Species and volumes covered by the certificate Recent harvests on property that is now in the RCPA pool for certification produced a mixture of northern hardwood species and softwood species (Red maple, Sugar maple, White ash, Yellow birch White pine, and Hemlock) for sawtimber and pulp. B. Description of current and planned processing capacity RCPA does not have any processing capacity of its own and at the time of the assessment, neither did any of the participating landowners. The RCPA forester discussed the possibility of one or more landowners having access to a portable sawmill and processing certified timber on-site.

Encouraging the landowners to process on site, and facilitating coordination among the group, fits in well with the long-term objectives of the RCPA’s Sustainable Forest Project and may be of increasing importance in the future. Any developments in this area will be undertaken through close communication with SmartWood and will be revisited during annual audits.

2. CERTIFICATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS

2.1. Assessment Dates August 2001 Stakeholder public notices distribution starts (email, fax,

newspaper and mail) Initial team planning September 27-29, 2001 Field assessment at RCPA October 2001 Begin report write-up and continue stakeholder interactions

(emails and interviews) December 11, 2001 Draft report to RCPA for initial review & fact-

checking/comment January 2002 Comments received from RCPA January 2002 Draft report to peer reviewers and SmartWood headquarters February 2002 Comment back from peer reviewers March 2002 Final draft submitted to SW Certification Committee

2.2. Assessment Team and Peer Reviewers • Daphne Hewitt, Team Leader, MS. in Forest Management. Technical Coordinator for

SmartWood International Division, with over 10 years experience in forest and natural resources management, including teaching and consultation work, both internationally and within the USA.

• David de Calesta, Wildlife Biologist, PhD in Wildlife Ecology. Dr. de Calesta is currently

working as an adjunct professor of forestry and wildlife at the State University of New York, School of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse, and as a wildlife consultant. He spent thirteen years as a research biologist with the Forest Service’s Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, and fifteen years prior to that as a professor and extension wildlife specialist at North Carolina State University and Colorado State University. He has participated on three SmartWood forest certification assessments.

• Philip T. Siarkowski, Forester, BS in Forestry, has worked as a forester in the Adirondacks

Region for nearly 30 years. He has worked for large industrial landowners and as a County forester, ran his own private forestry consulting business for twenty years, and is currently a forest value appraiser for New York State. As a private consultant forester, his clients ranged from the Adirondack Park Agency to non-profit conservation groups to large industrial landowners and many private non-industrial landowners. He has participated on two SmartWood forest certification assessments.

Two different peer reviews were sought for this assessment. The peer reviewers included: A Ph.D. forest ecologist with 25 years experience doing field work in the northeastern United

States, and experience working on several assessment teams. A forester, B.S. Environmental Studies and A..A..S. Pre-Professional Forestry, who has worked

in the forests of upstate New York for nearly 30 years with landowners of varying sizes and objectives, and has previously served on an assessment team.

2.3. Assessment Process

During the field phase of the assessment process, the team conducted the following steps as part of the normal SmartWood certification process:

1) Pre-Assessment Analysis – RCPA contacted National Wildlife Federation, SmartWood’s northeastern regional service partner, in the fall of 1999 to gather information on the assessment process, standards used for assessments, and get preliminary budget information for a certified pool. Over the next year and a half, there was consistent contact between RCPA staff and NWF to clarify group certification assessment processes and expectations, and clarify questions around guideline interpretation. In the spring of 2001, RCPA’s forester indicated that they were ready to schedule an assessment for the fall of 2001.

Prior to the assessment team’s arrival in the field, they received several documents from RCPA including: a description of the Adirondack Park Sustainable Forestry Project; an introduction to the Forest Stewardship Council Principles used in the Certification of Forest Land (created for certified pool members); a report for the first year of the Adirondack Park Sustainable Forestry Project; two management plans; and a map showing the certified pool properties location relative to each other in the context of the Adirondack Park. 2) Selection of Sites - Sites to be visited in the field were selected using a stratified sampling

method with properties grouped according to the following criteria:

• Size (a range from the largest to smallest landholding in the pool)

• Harvesting history (from most recently harvested to least intervention)

• Consultant forester responsible (properties managed by RCPA forester vs. those that already engaged an independent consulting forester)

• Landowner present for interview with the team (vs. non-resident landowners)

A number of properties came under two or more of the selection criteria. The assessment team visited 7 out of 11 total properties in the pool, a sampling intensity of 64%, and interviewed 3 landowners on site. Only one of the properties visited had completed a timber sale within the past year. The sites visited represent 84% of the total acreage in the RCPA pool of forestland under their management.

3) Field Interviews and Site Reviews – Assessment Report Development – The assessment report was developed over a 40-day period after the fieldwork was completed. Throughout this write-up period the assessors continued to conduct stakeholder interviews and other research.

4) Peer and Candidate Operation Review of the Report – The final draft report was reviewed by RCPA and two independent peer reviewers.

5) Certification Decision – The certification decision was taken by SmartWood headquarters. This was completed after review of comments made on the draft report by operation and peer reviewers.

Table 1. Summary of Forest Areas & Areas Visited by SmartWood Assessors Forest/Block Name Total Area in Acres Assessment Site Richard Stewart 100 Overview of whole property Peter Bien 300 total; 290 forestland Most recently harvested

area; stands demonstrating seral stages; wetland area

North Woods Club 3,140 Most recently harvested stand; wildlife habitat management areas; representative hardwood stands; wetlands

James Phillips 532.5 Heavily cutover stand; representative hardwood stands

Naomi Tannen 360 total; 310 forestland Representative hardwood stands

John Sullivan 340 Overview of whole property Robert and Louise Bartholomew

102 total; 98 forestland Overview of whole property

TOTALS 4,874.5 total; 4,810.5 forestland

2.4. Guidelines

Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks’ 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.

To obtain a copy of these guidelines contact the Northeast SmartWood Coordinator at National Wildlife Federation, 58 State St., Montpelier, VT 05602, tel: (802) 229-0650, fax: (802) 229-4532, or Email: browns@nwf.org

2.5. Stakeholder consultation process and results

The purpose of the stakeholder consultation strategy for this assessment was threefold:

1) to ensure that the public is aware of and informed about the assessment process and its objectives;

2) to assist the field assessment team in identifying potential issues; and, 3) to provide diverse opportunities for the public to discuss and act upon the findings of the

assessment.

This process is not just stakeholder notification, but wherever possible, detailed and meaningful stakeholder interaction. The process of stakeholder interaction does not stop after the field visits, or for that matter, after even a certification decision is made. SmartWood welcomes, at any time, comments on certified operations and such comments often provide a basis for field auditing.

In the case of RCPA, prior to the actual assessment process, a public consultation stakeholder document (see Appendix A) was developed and distributed by email, FAX and mail. Through input from RCPA, NWF and SmartWood, an initial list of stakeholders was developed and public announcements were distributed to them. This list also provided a basis for the assessment team

to select people for interviews (in person or by telephone or through email). A list of stakeholders that were notified, and those interviewed, is available in Appendix B.

Issues Identified Through Stakeholder Comments and Public Meetings

The stakeholder consultation activities were organized to give participants the opportunity to provide comments according to general categories of interest based upon the assessment criteria. The table below summarizes the issues identified by the assessment team with a brief discussion of each based upon specific interview and/or public meeting comments. Table 2: Stakeholder Comments

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

RCPA appears to be committed to FSC principles and following them to the best of their ability, but concerns were raised regarding the actual applicability of such goals to small landowners, and the risk of compromising the principles. Concerns that RCPA certification commitment relies too heavily on one individual and may not be maintained in the long term if there was a staff change

SmartWood’s experience working with small landowners enables it to provide support to resource managers and solutions that fit in with FSC regulations. The assessment resulted in required actions by RCPA to ensure continuation of the program over the long-term.

P2: Tenure & Use Rights & Responsibilities

No Comment N/A

P3 – Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

No Comment N/A

P4: Community Relations & Workers’ Rights

Of those stakeholders that were not very familiar with RCPA , many had the understanding that the organization was too preservationist and not representative of local citizens. Some comments received reflected unease that forest certification was linked with an organization that had a history of environmental advocacy.

SmartWood recommends that RCPA’s Sustainable Forestry Project continue to strive towards a clear identity and increase its profile within the region that it works. In addition, the assessment teams recommends that RCPA makes efforts to diversify its pool of participating landowners to become more representative of local citizenry and business interests.

P5: Benefits from the Forest

Concerns expressed that this group may abandon the idea of certification if it becomes financially non-viable. There was a concern that RCPA’s primary interest may actually be in adding private lands to public domain lands for preservation purposes, not in working with private landowner interests. Positive comments received in support of RCPA’s philosophy and the benefits to

The assessment team did not find this to be a threat to long-term commitment within this group. As above (under P4), the assessment team recommends that RCPA continue to strive for clear definition of its Sustainable Forestry Project objectives and impacts.

communities from certification. P6: Environmental Impact

Stakeholders felt that RCPA was more interested in preservation than sustainable forestry, based on the current pool of landowners. Concern that larger, commercial forest operations are excluded from landowner pool due to apparent differences in profile from non-commercial forest properties. Other comments reflected gratitude that RCPA is providing a framework for careful stewardship for forest properties that had previously suffered under poor management.

RCPA has been given recommendations to diversify its pool of certified landowners in the near future. The Sustainable Forestry Project is a relatively new initiative, there is still work to be done to achieve public recognition across a broad spectrum of stakeholders.

P7: Management Plan

No comment N/A

P8: Monitoring & Assessment

Concerns that RCPA certification relies too heavily on one person, no impact monitoring or long-range sustainability of the organization can be guaranteed.

As above (under P1), the assessment team has established a condition to address the continuity of the certification activities of RCPA’s Sustainable Forestry Project.

P9: Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forest

No comment N/A

P10 - Plantations No comment N/A

3. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1. General Discussion of Findings [This section must provide a summary of the findings of the assessment of the candidate operation. Comments should be organized by FSC Principle and should demonstrate to the public that the operation has successfully “passed” all of the principals. Weakness section should focus on major flaws, not minor weaknesses. Each weakness identified should have a corresponding condition in section 3.3, which ties the operation to improved performance in that particular area.] Table 3: Findings by FSC Principle

Principle/Subject Area

Strengths Weaknesses

P1: FSC Commitment and Legal Compliance

RCPA demonstrates considerable commitment to FSC Principles and Criteria in the efforts made to prepare both the organization and member landowners for certification. RCPA requires written confirmation from participating landowners to verify their understanding of the Principles and of legal compliance.

RCPA’s certification activities rely heavily on the efforts of on individual. In order to ensure long-term continuity of the certification initiative, RCPA should demonstrate formal institutional support.

P2: Tenure & Use Rights & Responsibilities

To the best of their ability, RCPA maintains transparency in communications with participating landowners and has not encountered any know conflicts in tenure or use rights.

P3 – Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

No indigenous people have historical claims to the Adirondack Park area. To their credit, RCPA researched this possibility thoroughly and did not find any evidence that would impact their proposed activities.

P4: Community Relations & Workers’ Rights

RCPA is a small organization that provides a good working environment to its immediate employees. In addition, RCPA states the desire to work within the landowners’ existing forest management arrangements and does not intend to displace a consultant forester. By encouraging landowners to undertake harvesting activities on their properties they will, in some cases, be providing work for local contractors.

RCPA is not well known outside of their immediate area in the Adirondack Park. This is partly a function of the size of their territory and the newness of the organization, but may be a weakness when RCPA needs to work with consultant foresters in new areas.

P5: Benefits from the Forest

The mission of RCPA is compatible with this principle. By working with small, non-industrial, private landowners and by customizing management plans for each, RCPA is ensuring that benefits derived

Only one member property has scheduled timber production in the near future. There is interest in small-scale, value added specialty item production within the group in the next few years. RCPA

from the forest pass directly to the forest owner.

needs to ensure that it follows SmartWood guidelines when developing chain of custody procedures for landowners in the pool when they are ready to market certified products.

P6: Environmental Impact

RCPA has a variety of participating properties located in two geographically different areas within the Adirondack Park. The average size is small but the addition of one large property increases the environmental impact of the Sustainable Forestry Project. Landowners in the pool express the interest in maintaining the conservation value of their forests.

The majority of the properties that comprise RCPA membership are small and are not currently being harvested. The profile of the current members is weighted towards environmentally aware, conservative forest stewards for whom harvesting is of secondary importance. RCPA should strive to increase the diversity of pool members as part of their long-term goals.

P7: Management Plan

All but two of the properties in the RCPA pool have current, recently revised management plans in effect. RCPA has made a tremendous effort to customize each individual management plan according to the requirements of the FSC. The two outstanding management plans are scheduled to be completed within a matter of months.

P8: Monitoring & Assessment

RCPA has expended considerable effort in researching and developing a standardized monitoring system, involving permanent or semi-permanent samples, which can be applied to all enrolled parcels. These samples are being designed to monitor growth rates, regeneration and forest condition, as well as composition and changes in the flora and fauna. In addition, RCPA is developing a system for landowners themselves to record observations concerning the physical features of their certified lands, with the intent of having all members’ lands monitored n the same way, and increase awareness of changes on their property.

There is no system in place for monitoring at the organizational level, as most efforts have been concentrated on monitoring at the property level. As a Resource Manager, RCPA will need to be able to assess their effectiveness in providing guidance to member landowners; recruiting and retaining members; and impacting forest practices.

P9: Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forest

The management philosophy of RCPA emphasize identification, retention, and enhancement of HCVF attributes and values. Forest management plans developed by the RCPA forester for landowners within its pool of properties include identification of HCVF attributes and values and recommendations for

preservation, protection, and/or enhancement of attributes when found within landowner forestlands.

P10 - Plantations N/A N/A

3.2. Certification Decision

Based on a thorough field review, analysis and compilation of findings by this SmartWood assessment team, RCPA is recommended to receive joint FSC/SmartWood Forest Management and Chain of Custody (FM/COC) Certification as a Resource Manager, with the stipulated conditions listed below.

In order to maintain certification, RCPA will be audited annually on-site and required to remain in compliance with the FSC principles and criteria as further defined by regional guidelines developed by SmartWood or the FSC. RCPA will also be required to fulfill 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 {operation} 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. Non-compliance with conditions will lead to de-certification. Conditions Condition 1: Within the first year of certification OR prior to acceptance into the pool of any new properties, whichever comes first, RCPA shall develop clear guidelines for prospective new members and for current members that incorporates into one document the selection process and criteria for entry into the pool; responsibility of the landowners to maintain membership in the pool; and rules for exiting the pool. (Section 5: Resource Manager Policy Compliance)

Condition 2: Within the first year of certification, the RCPA shall develop and implement a policy for insuring clear boundary demarcation of participating properties. The policy should include:

• Timelines for completing boundary marking/clearing – at a minimum must be in place prior to any harvest that abuts a boundary

• Monitoring measures by the RCPA to assess progress • Incorporation of boundary demarcation policy into each management plan (Criterion 1.5)

Condition 3: Within the second year of certification, RCPA shall develop an amendment to the management plans of all properties in their pool that provides the following:

• template descriptions of probable historical ecological conditions for the properties (landscape level);

• discussion of how representative the existing and planned stand conditions are within local landscapes;

• discussion of potential short-term environmental impacts and cumulative effects of management activities on forest resources;

• provision for maintaining/enhancing long-term ecological functions of the forest. • maps of the natural communities identified on the property, based on appropriate

available natural community classification systems This amendment will increase landowner awareness of the ways in which forest management can help in maintaining ecological functions of the forest. (Criterion 6.1) Condition 4: Within the first year of certification, RCPA shall include in its generic management plan, and in plans for individual landowners, instructions and recommendations for controlling spills of hazardous materials, removal of broken or leaking equipment, or prohibition of parking equipment in riparian zones, or near sinkholes, or ground water supplies. (Criterion 6.7) Condition 5: Within the first year of certification, a timetable for revising management plans should be established and added to each plan. Revisions shall incorporate results from the monitoring activities carried out by RCPA’s forester for each property. (Criterion 7.2) Condition 6: Within the first year of certification, RCPA must make publicly available a summary of the primary elements of the management plans for the properties included in the certified pool. (Criterion 7.4) Condition 7: Within the second year of certification, RCPA shall have in place, and be actively implementing, a monitoring plan that is appropriate to scale and objective of participating properties. The final plan can be based on the draft material and research results that currently exist, as appropriate, to assess impact of management activities on a variety of forest indicators, including growth rates, regeneration, species composition, flora and fauna, and invasive species. The plan shall also include a system for RCPA to monitor overall performance of participating landowners with certification objectives. (Criterion 8.2) Condition 8: Within the second year of certification, RCPA shall document the process whereby it will monitor the impact of the Sustainable Forestry Project in terms of effectiveness in providing guidance to member landowners; in recruiting and retaining members; and in communicating its goals and objectives to the public. (Section 5: Resource Manager Policy Compliance).

Condition 9: Within the first year of certification, RCPA must document their system for marking logs as certified and for specifying the certified status of the wood, including FSC code, in all documentation relating to the sale and transport of forest products. (Criterion 8.3) Condition 10: Within the second year of certification, RCPA shall make publicly available on a regular basis, the results from the monitoring systems developed under Criterion 8.2. and Section 5. (Criterion 8.5)

There are 15 nonbinding recommendations.

SmartWood Certification Annual Addendum to the Public Summary for Residents' Committee to Protect the Adirondacks (RCPA), 2003

1.1 Audit Process

A. Audit year: 2003

B. Dates of Audit: April 11, 2003

C. Audit Team: John Gunn, SmartWood Technical Coordinator, Northern US. B.S. in

Wildlife Management from the University of Maine; Master of Forest Science from the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies; Ph.D. (expected 2003) Biology from the University of New Brunswick. Four years as Vice President of Conservation and Land Management for private timber company in Maine.

D. Audit Overview: A significant number of the conditions were related to

documentation of policies and processes. Therefore, the audit began at the RCPA office with a comprehensive review of the new documentation prepared by RCPA. RCPA was well organized for this portion of the audit. No harvest activities took place in the previous year, so the field visit focused on properties that were not visited during the initial assessment. The field visits also provided an opportunity to observe boundary line status, past harvest history, monitoring transects, and the landscape context under which RCPA is working. Additionally, the field visit provided an opportunity to discuss overall management philosophy and the practical implementation of the system developed by RCPA.

E. Sites Visited: North Creek RCPA Office. Vetter Property (450 acres, Chester, NY);

Tannen-Mahay Property (310 acres, Schroon/Crown Point, NY); Langdon Property (60 acres, Bolton, NY).

F. Personnel Interviewed:

The following people were consulted during this audit: Person interviewed Position/Organization Ross Morgan Forester (outgoing) Peter Bauer RCPA Executive Director Charlie Butler Forester (incoming)

G. Documentation reviewed:

Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks (RCPA) Assessment Report 2002

RCPA Property Map (overview)

Tannen Property Management Plan

Annual Report on Compliance with FSC Sustainable Forestry Certification (binder with

Tabs containing documents related to conditions below)

FSC Sustainable Forestry Certification in the Adirondack Park through the Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks (March 2003 )

Standards for Forest Management Plans for Lands Certified in the Adirondack Park by the Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks According to the Standards and Criteria of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

Standards for Maintaining Boundary Lines of Properties Certified in the Adirondack Park by the Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks

Standards for Hazardous Materials Spills on Lands Certified in the Adirondack Park by the Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks According to the Standards and Criteria of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

Forest Management Plan for Robert and Leslie Harrison

A Panel Discussion on Timber Theft and Timber Trespass (Pedersen, Layman, Greason, and Meyer – From the 1999 Capital District Forest Owner Workshop Proceedings).

Forest Management Plan Template

Monitoring Transects and Plots on Lands Awarded Forest Stewardship Council Certification in the Adirondack Park by The Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks.

1.2 General Audit Findings and Conclusions

The Residents’ Committee to Protect the Adirondacks (RCPA) has spent the last year refining a comprehensive system to make FSC certification accessible to small landowners in the Adirondack Park. The RCPA has not added any new members, nor conducted any timber harvests since the initial assessment. RCPA instead has focused on developing the documentation required under the conditions of certification. These efforts have laid the groundwork for the easier addition of land to the certified pool, and the monitoring of activities as the pool grows. The concentration on systems and documentation will ease the transition RCPA will be making with a significant staffing change. After three years at RCPA, forester Ross Morgan is returning to Vermont and will be replaced by Charlie Butler. Charlie has a Bachelor of Science in Forestry from Michigan State University and a Masters from the University of Minnesota (soils emphasis). Charlie worked for the state of New Mexico as a service forester and more recently on management plans for the New York DEC in the Adirondack Park. Charlie has experience working with landowners and developing management plans, both should prove to be good assets in his new role at RCPA. RCPA has made much progress on developing a monitoring program as required under Condition 7 (due in 2004). RCPA has put significant effort and thought into the design and implementation of this program. The RCPA has developed a 4-tiered compliance program. The first tier details the scientific and source materials that the RCPA relies upon to inform its understanding, interpretation and implementation of

each of the 10 FSC Principles. Tier two is an Annual Landowner Conformance Report that each landowner certified through the RCPA must complete. Tier three is a field monitoring program to monitor ecological compliance on certified properties that relies upon data analysis using transects and permanent plots. Tier four will deal with compliance for social and economic impacts. The field portion of the audit included a visit to a Monitoring Transect that will serve as continuous inventory plots as well as the focus of data collection for specific questions developed by each landowner. This Condition will be visited in detail during the next audit, but the significant progress is worthy of mentioning at this time. Since no harvest activities have occurred since the last audit, RCPA did not develop the system of tracing and tracking as defined in Condition 9. A new Corrective Action Request (CAR) has been developed to ensure that a system is in place prior to any actual harvesting. Additionally, although the documentation developed by RCPA is comprehensive, several of the public documents do not accurately describe the terminology associated with the relationship between FSC, SmartWood, and RCPA. A CAR has been developed to address the correction of these documents. With the single exception noted above for Condition 9, RCPA has systematically addressed the Conditions required under certification and therefore it is recommended that FSC certification be maintained.

1.3 Status of Conditions and Corrective Action Requests (CARs)

A. Compliance Summary of Previously Issued Conditions and CARs Condition 1: Closed (2003) Condition 2: Closed (2003) Condition 3: Due in 2004 Condition 4: Closed (2003) Condition 5: Closed (2003) Condition 6: Closed (2003) Condition 7: Due in 2004 Condition 8: Due in 2004 Condition 9: Not Met (see CAR 2-03) Condition 10: Due in 2004 B. New CARs Issued in this Audit CAR 1-03: Prior to the 2004 annual audit, RCPA will revise all documentation to clarify and accurately reflect the relationship between the accreditation body (FSC), the certifier (SmartWood), the certificate holder (RCPA), and the certified pool members (landowners). Further, the SmartWood Certification Administrator must approve SmartWood and FSC logo use in advance. CAR 2-03: Prior to harvesting any timber on certified pool properties, RCPA will gain approval from SmartWood of a clearly documented system for marking logs as certified and for specifying the certified status of the wood, including FSC code, in all documentation relating to the sale and transport of forest products.