Forest Certification and Its Implications for America's National Forests, 53820-53823 [E8-21611]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53820-53823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21611]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Forest Certification and Its Implications for America's National 
Forests

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service is seeking comments on forest 
certification and its implications for America's national forests. This 
Federal Register notice is to serve as a formal public solicitation of 
views on the question of National Forest System certification and its 
implications, if national forest lands were to become certified under 
one or both of the two major certification systems being used in the 
United States. The U.S. Forest Service, which manages 193 million 
acres, or approximately eight percent of the nation's land, believes 
that it is important to better understand the implications of third-
party certification of National Forest System (NFS) lands and, in 2005, 
began exploring independent, third party certification as a potential 
option. To this end, the Forest Service initiated the National Forest 
Certification Study, which resulted in the report, ``National Forest 
Certification Study: An Evaluation of the Application of Forest 
Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) 
Standards on Five National Forests.'' This report documents the study 
in which third-party auditors evaluated current forest management 
practices on five national forest units using the existing 
certification standards of two certification programs, Sustainable 
Forestry Initiative (SFI) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
    Recognizing that the Forest Service has not decided whether it will 
seek certification, public outreach and discussion is requested to 
obtain public and stakeholder views on the National Forest 
Certification Study and its associated report, as well as the potential 
implications of NFS certification in general before determining how to 
proceed.
    In addition to comments on the National Forest Certification Study, 
the Forest Service is particularly interested in public views on the 
following questions:
    1. What are your general views on the implications of independent, 
third party certification of NFS lands?
    2. Would certification improve the management of national forests?
    3. Could certification make it more difficult to achieve national 
forest management goals?
    4. What questions would certification be able to answer, and what 
needs would it be able to meet, on national forest lands?
    5. Are there key questions or needs that certification would be 
unable or poorly suited to address?
    6. Would independent, third party certification be an appropriate 
or effective tool, given the unique role of national forests? Or, 
because of that unique role, would certification be particularly 
inappropriate or ineffective?
    Detailed information about the NFS Certification Study is available 
on the following Web site: https://www.fs.fed.us/projects/
forestcertification/index.shtml.

DATES: Comments must be received, in writing, on or before November 17, 
2008. Comments received after that date will be considered to the 
extent praticable.

ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Doug

[[Page 53821]]

MacCleery, USDA Forest Service (FM), 201 14th St. SW., Mailstop: 1103, 
Washington, DC 20024. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to 
dmaccleery@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to (202) 205-1045.
    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying. The public may inspect comments received at the above address. 
Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to (202) 205-1745 to facilitate 
entry to the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug MacCleery, Forest Management, 
(202) 205-1745, dmaccleery@fs.fed.us. Additional information concerning 
Forest Service certification may be obtained on the Internet at https://
www.fs.fed.us/projects/forestcertification/index.shtml.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through 
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Independent, third-party certification is 
one of the most significant developments in the field of forest 
management in the last two decades. Its use has expanded dramatically 
as the public and consumers have increased their interest in practical 
ways to ensure that good management practices are being applied to 
forests both domestically and around the world. Certified area has 
expanded to an estimated 7% of forests globally. In the U.S., the area 
of forests certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and 
the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) has increased from virtually none 
in 1998 to over 60 million acres today. About 14 million acres of 
state-owned lands have been certified, in most cases to both FSC and 
SFI standards.
    In the United States, certification was first applied to private 
lands. Due to the perceived benefits of the process, public lands are 
now becoming involved as well. Eight state forest systems in the U.S. 
are now certified. Some State forestry officials believe that 
certification has served to improve the quality of forestry management 
and to affirm their commitment to accepted standards of good forest 
management. Many believe that the certification process has been more 
about public accountability than providing certified wood to the 
marketplace.
    Certifying National Forest System lands has been debated for 
several years. It is a sensitive and complex issue, perhaps more so for 
the NFS than any other type of ownership in the U.S. National Forest 
System planning is exceedingly complex and management practices and 
objectives are closely scrutinized by both the public and U.S. Courts. 
The Forest Service is currently assessing the value and implications of 
certification for the NFS.

National Forest Certification Study

    In 2005, in order to evaluate the implications of national forest 
certification, the U.S. Forest Service initiated a formal study of the 
issue. Independent third-party certification indicates certification to 
standards derived by a group external to the organization being 
audited. Under this study, independent third-party auditors evaluated 
current forest management practices on five national forest units using 
the existing certification standards of two certification programs, 
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and Forest Stewardship Council 
(FSC). FSC certification standards and related information can be 
viewed at: https://www.fscus.org. The SFI Web site is at: https://
www.sfiprogram.org.
    On October 22, 2007, ``National Forest Certification Study: An 
Evaluation of the Application of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and 
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Standards on Five National 
Forests'' was released. This report, produced by the Pinchot Institute 
for Conservation (PIC), summarizes and discusses the five third-party 
evaluations and captures lessons learned through a review of 
participant experiences.
    The study was designed to:
    1. Evaluate the potential implications of third-party certification 
of national forests and grasslands,
    2. Provide a better understanding of how national forest management 
practices align with FSC and SFI standards, and
    3. Study the lessons learned as a basis for determining what policy 
and management direction may be needed in the event forest 
certification were pursued in the future.
    Actual certification by FSC or SFI was outside the scope of these 
evaluations and was not a possible outcome on any of the study units. 
Nor did the FSC or SFI participate directly in the study. However, this 
study provided the Forest Service with a valuable opportunity to 
examine the consistency of current national forest resource management 
activities with the requirements of the two major forest certification 
programs now operating in the U.S. This was the first time national 
forest management had been evaluated with reference to the standards of 
such certification programs.

Participating Units

    The National Forest System (NFS) management units evaluated were 
the:
     Allegheny National Forest (ANF) in Pennsylvania.
     Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit (LFSU) on the Fremont-
Winema National Forest in Oregon.
     Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) in Wisconsin.
     Mt. Hood National Forest (MHNF) in Oregon.
     National Forests in Florida (NFF).

Role of the Pinchot Institute for Conservation

    The Pinchot Institute for Conservation (PIC), which carried out 
this study, is an independent nonprofit research and education 
organization dedicated to investigating new approaches to forest 
conservation and has carried out certification tests in a variety of 
settings. The Institute investigated the implications of certification 
on state-owned, private, tribal, and university forest lands. For this 
project the Institute:
     Worked to secure funding for the certification 
evaluations.
     Contracted with accredited, third-party auditors.
     Provided coordination between the Forest Service and 
auditors.
     Reviewed and evaluated the auditors' reports.
     Interviewed those involved in the certification 
evaluations to assess their views as to potential benefits and 
detriments/costs of the process.
     Prepared the study findings, results, and a lessons 
learned report.

Study Scope and Conduct

    The national forest certification evaluations were designed to 
closely approximate the process that a national forest would undergo 
were it actually seeking certification. The audit firms were required 
to be fully accredited to carry out FSC and SFI certification audits 
and to use the same approach they would for an actual certification 
assessment. The study unit national forests addressed FSC and SFI 
requirements as set forth in standards applicable to private, State-
owned and Department of Defense and Department of Energy (DOD-DOE) 
lands in the U.S.
    All certification evaluations were the functional equivalents of 
major, broad-based management reviews of all aspects of national forest 
management. The FSC and SFI evaluation reports of the five national 
forests read like other certification assessment reports. They

[[Page 53822]]

include a summary of the management setting, stakeholder feedback, 
findings of performance gaps or non-conformances (major and minor), and 
issuance of Corrective Action Requests.

Performance Against FSC and SFI Standards Used in the Study

    Auditors found many situations where practices on the units 
evaluated demonstrated good overall conformance with most of the FSC 
and SFI standards currently being applied to private and State-owned 
and DOD-DOE lands in the U.S.
    Examples included:
     Forest planning and operations.
     Inpact assessments.
     Stakeholder consultation.
     Coordination with First Nations.
     Extent of reserves.
     Protection of threatened and endangered species.
     Control of invasives and exotics.
    The auditors did cite a number of areas where the Forest Service is 
not meeting the FSC or SFI certification standards used in the study. 
Performance gaps on one or more study units included:
     Forest health issues arising from the backlog of 
management activities.
     A backlog of road maintenance and decommissioning.
     Inadequate monitoring of non-timber forest products.
     Issues with old-growth protection and management on two 
study national forests.
     Inadequate attention to logger safety.
     Operation under outdated management plans.
     Inadequate attention to off highway management issues and 
their enviornmental effects.
     Difficulty in dealing with oil and gas leases not 
controlled by the Federal Government on one study unit (split estate).
    Some performance gaps are minor and do not preclude certification 
if they can be remedied within a given time period after a certificate 
is issued. Other gaps are major and would preclude FSC or SFI 
certification until mechanisms are put into place to address them. 
Auditors also issue observations or note opportunities for improvement 
that suggest things that may improve compliance with standards.

Feedback From Forest Service Staff Involved in the Study

    The geographic representation of the study on unit national forests 
provided an opportunity to test certification in different NFS 
settings. Each participating forest faces similar agencywide challenges 
(limited resources and overextended staff, appeals and litigation) and 
yet is faced with its own ecological and socioeconomic issues.
    Most of the NFS study coordinators (the Forest Service point person 
for the study on each forest) felt that the certification programs 
impose requirements that are relevant to determining whether a forest 
is meeting its management objectives and improving their management 
practices over time. Forest staff indicated that certification can be a 
valuable tool if carried out in an effective manner that does not 
impose an additional, unsupported burden on staff and resources.
    Staff found the evaluations to be a broad-based and comprehensive 
review--often more so than the Forest Service's own targeted, internal 
audits, of the many integrated management activities occurring on the 
forest. To this end, they were impressed with the wide range of issues 
addressed by the evaluations.
    Coordinators also reported that the FSC and SFI evaluations 
provided positive, independent reinforcement of their management 
activities while identifying those areas where improvements are needed. 
In many cases, these identified improvements were not unfamiliar to 
forest staff but would not be addressed unless additional funding and/
or staff resources were available. Participating staff also recognized 
the value of third parties communicating publicly on the successes and 
difficulties of national forest management, especially difficulties 
arising from factors they feel are ``beyond their control.'' In this 
context, NFS study coordinators identified Corrective Action Requests 
that they felt would be difficult or impossible to fix, and would 
likely need to be addressed by the Forest Service Washington Office.

Some Lessons Learned in the Study

    The following is a summary of some of the lessons learned in the 
study.

Lessons Pertinent to Individual National Forests

     Management issues, challenges, and certification 
assessment results will vary from unit to unit.
     The certification assessments were useful feedback 
mechanisms for national forest personnel regarding their management of 
the forest, and by providing a more comprehensive and integrative 
review than normal internal audits, they complemented existing 
management systems. Normally, a certification assessment would also 
help determine whether a forest management unit is meeting its own 
management objectives, and would emphasize improving management 
practices over time.
     The assessments provided opportunities beyond existing 
legal and administrative requirements for interest groups and 
stakeholders to provide input regarding national forest management.
     Outdated land and resource management plans may prevent 
some forests from meeting the requirements set forth in certification 
standards, which emphasizes a potentially broader need for updating 
national forest management systems.
     The lack in some cases of integrated landscape planning 
involving adjacent lands and landowners raised the issue of the unique 
role of national forests within the broader landscape, as well as 
nationwide, and how certification would take account of this role.

Lessons Pertinent to the National Forest System

     Backlogs in road maintenance, delays in silvicultural 
treatments, and other problems in the implementation of approved forest 
plans were often cited as indicators of larger budgeting and staffing 
issues outside the control of individual national forests (in the hands 
of Congress or the Administration).
     National forest staff time required to participate in 
certification assessment and reporting procedures varied considerably 
from unit to unit but raised issues of `unsupported' budgetary demands 
(not specifically covered by existing funding levels).
     The fact that ownership and control of sub-surface mineral 
rights may lie in the hands of external parties raised broader 
questions about how the Forest Service would deal with such issues if 
they impact forest management and the ability of a forest unit to meet 
certification standards.
     Inconsistencies between certification standards and 
existing National Forest System management, planning and policy 
commitments (Northwest Forest Plan, the definition of Native American 
organizations as sovereign entities, chemical use), raise broader 
questions about the relationship between private certification 
organizations and federal land management systems.
     Requirements in the SFI and FSC standards that the Forest 
Service make formal `commitments' to the certification programs raise 
questions about how the agency could do this organizationally and 
legally.

[[Page 53823]]

Next Steps

    Recognizing that the Forest Service has not decided whether it will 
seek certification, the following are relevant considerations:
    The FSC Federal Lands Policy establishes three criteria to be met 
before any new Federal land system such as the NFS could seek 
certification. In summary, the criteria are a willing landowner (the 
Forest Service), a determination that public consensus exists regarding 
management of the NFS, and the development of a set of standards 
specific to each category of Federal forestland (Forest Service, Bureau 
of Land Management, etc.). Because the Forest Service has not 
determined whether it will seek certification, FSC has not yet 
determined whether, how or when they will address these criteria for 
the Forest Service.
    SFI has indicated that it would welcome NFS participation in SFI 
certification. A landowner seeking SFI certification must formally 
commit to reporting and management measures specific to the SFI 
Program. How and whether the Forest Service could make these 
commitments would also need to be determined.
    A public outreach effort is now underway to obtain public and 
stakeholder views on the outcomes of the National Forest Certification 
Study and the potential implications of NFS certification in general. 
Once this effort is completed, the Forest Service will evaluate its 
options and determine how to proceed.

    Dated: September 10, 2008.
Charles L. Myers,
Associate Deputy Chief, NFS.
[FR Doc. E8-21611 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P