|
|
More about Massachusetts Forest and Park Friends Network
Massachusetts forests in need of friends - Northeast District
Massachusetts forests in need of friends - Central and Western Districts
Historic Resources in Friends Groups Forests and Parks
Campaign to stop illegal off-road vehicles from destroying our forests
Workshop Reports from the Partners in Parks Conference, June 2007
The Future of MA Forests and Parks is Up to You!
|
|||||
On this page:
Forest Futures Visioning Process (FFVP) - determing future management of public lands
Wildlands and Woodlands: A Vision for the Forests of Massachusetts
Why Five out of 5 Friends Network Facilitators say "NO" to FSC certification
Why our public lands need Resource Management Plans (RMP)
Forests and Parks in Need of Friends
Forest Futures Visioning Process (FFVP) - determing future management of public lands
The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is wrapping up its Forest Futures Visioning Process (FFVP), which will make recommendations for forest management long into the future.
The Technical Steering Committee (TSC) of the Forest Futures Visioning Process is requesting public input on a draft version of the recommendations they will present to the DCR Stewardship Council.
What You Can Do
Read the TSC Forest Futures Vision Draft Recommendations.
Read the FFVP Advisory Group of Stakeholders (AGS) Reserves Working Group recommendations that are embedded in the TSC Draft (pp. 96-107). This is a comprehensive proposal for delineation of 80% state-owned lands protected as Reserves and Parklands, which the TSC never discussed. AGS Reserves Working Group Recommendations.
Compare the TSC vision to Harvard Forester's vision for MA forests.
Wildlands and Woodlands: A Vision for the Forests of Massachusetts.Read the TSC and the AGS Discussions
View materials and online discussions of the Advisory Group of Stakeholders (AGS)—your representatives in FFVP— and the Technical Steering Committee (TSC). Their recommendations will govern forest management and the future of MA forests and Parklands.
Forest Futures Advisory Group of Stakeholders (AGS) GoogleGroup
Forest Futures Technical Steering Committee (TSC) GoogleGroup
Notice from DCR on the Forest Futures Vision Process
Good Afternoon Partners:
[Here] is a letter from the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) of the Forest Futures Visioning Process, requesting public input on a draft version of recommendations they will make to DCR on forest stewardship.
We encourage you to review the TSC's draft recommendations, found here, and to provide your comments through the process outlined in the Committee's letter, including attendance at one of five upcoming public forums between February 4 and 11 (see above).
The public comment period will extend through February 22.
We appreciate your ongoing interest in the stewardship and management of DCR forest lands.Past Public Meeting Schedule and Materials
DCR Forest Futures Visioning Process Page.
Wildlands and Woodlands: A Vision for the Forests of Massachusetts - An alternative to TSC Recommendations? You decide.
A group of nine ecologists and historians affiliated with the Harvard Forest recently published a report on the status and future of forestlands in Massachusetts. Based on their assessment of the changing landscape, they developed a vision to protect the Commonwealth’s forests and the important economic, recreation, habitat and ecosystem services they provide. Compare Wildlands and Woodlands to the TSC Draft Recommendations. Download Wildlands and Woodlands: A Vision for the Forests of Massachusetts.
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification of MA Forests and Parks?
Why Five out of 5 Friends Network Facilitators say "NO" to FSC certification.
Link to investigative report below.Massachusetts wants to use certain forests for revenue generation and as fuel for biomass plants. FSC re-certification will allow this to happen.
Currently there are 5 large-scale biomass power plants slated to be built. These biomass plants will increase logging in public forests to 10 times greater than historical levels and consume 532,000 green tons of wood annually, requiring clear-cutting 6,200 acres, or partially cutting between 11,000 and 31,000 acres each year. Historical 1980- 2006 public land logging averaged 1,250 acres partially cut. (See: http://www.maforests.org.) Is this really "sustainable" and "renewable"?
MA lost FSC "Green" certification in 2009. Why?
Public outcry due to widespread evidence of FSC violations and aggressive logging practices, including thousands of acres clear-cut, and other forms of commercial grade logging in State Parks and State Forests---practices which were sanctioned by FSC over the past 5 years, caused the Commonwealth of MA to loose FSC certification. View the 2009 recertification evaluation audit report.
Now MA wants to recertify public lands. How does re-certification relate to the Forest Futures Visioning Process?
DCR has already decided that some properties are elgible for green certification and will be eligible for certification in the future. Does this mean that the Forest Future Visioning Process will not determine whether public lands should be certified? Will DCR and not the Forest Vision Process decide which lands are eligible for green certification, which implies timber harvesting?
Read what people in other states and countries are saying about FSC Certification: FSC-Watch.
Read what the Forest Futures Advisory Group of Stakeholders have to say about FSC violations here.
Which forests are to be used for timber? Is your favorite on the list?
View state forests lists with reviewed management plans.
View state forests without reviewed management plans.
To view the state wildlife lands list.
Is FSC Certification is appropriate for Massachusetts public lands?
Re-certification Comments
Friends Network investigative Report of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification
1. FSC standards are designed to promote sustainable commercial timber extraction from industrial-based lands and are not suitable for tracts of public lands held predominantly for preservation, ecological restoration and recreational services. The purposes for management of public lands are supposed to be to support ecosystem functions, not to be in the timber business. A market driven system has no place overseeing management of public lands.
2. FSC Certification, as a market-based management tool, undermines conservation efforts in Massachusetts’ public forests where no such commercial imperative exists, and has hindered efforts to give greater preference to biological diversity, ecological restoration, and recreation. On behalf of FSC, Scientific Certification Systems assessments have criticized the Commonwealth for not producing greater amounts of board feet from public forest lands, placing production before conservation, encouraging the state to “capture market value” of growing trees, rather than allowing them to proceed to late successional or old growth status.
3. FSC is a private organization in competition with other certification systems with a vested interest in increasing and keeping lands under their certification.
4. The FSC auditing company, Scientific Certification Systems, benefits financially from keeping FSC ‘in business’ and keeping clients certified. SCS has displayed a lack of understanding of the significant nature of the controversies related to the forestry policies on DCR lands which led to the defacto logging moratorium put in place by the Commissioner of DCR and the DCR Stewardship Council. For details see SCS desire to control any and all future moratoriums: CAR 2009.1 and accompanying discussion (beginning on page 55 ) SCS report: http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/eea/lf/green_certification_report_2009.pdf
5. The auditors of Scientific Certification Systems do not respect or understand the intent of MGL c. 21 s. 2F which requires full value Resource Management Plans for each DCR park, reservation and forest. Although the Northeast Standard requires that a client complies with all state laws, they conveniently deem compliance with this law as unnecessary to meet FSC requirements. MGL c. 21 s. 2F was intended to find balance among competing values on Massachusetts’ public lands. This balance is being ignored by SCS. See discussion of Criterion 7.1 (beginning on page 95) of the SCS report.
6. SCS revised its requirement for site specific forest management plans when the state did not comply. SCS is not concerned that the district forest management plans have made no effort to set aside any areas as parklands or recreational assets where commercial timber harvesting will be prohibited to allow for dispersed and accessible recreation.
7. FSC certification also makes no mention of the other economic values state public forests provide, such as preserving aesthetic and scenic areas for the tourism values they provide. Economic value to certification is simply timber value.
8. SCS has not questioned why there are so many FOIA requests from citizens with respect to 2 forestry issues. Instead of investigating reasons for these public requests, SCS bemoans the fact that valuable time is wasted in responding to public complaints by the agencies, and implies that it might be advantageous for the state to charge citizens more money for responses to the requests. See Recommendation 2009.1 and discussion (beginning on page 63) SCS report.
9. Climate change is upon us but not covered by FSC certification. Our state forests play a significant role in mitigating the effects of climate change. FSC certification does not take climate change into consideration in any of its forestry guidelines. See: ( page 44) SCS report: public input comment suggests “all ecosystems are at risk; the agencies don't know how to address this and current policies are archaic in the face of the climate change situation.” SCS response: “not specifically addressed in the FSC standard.”
10. FSC Certification has been used to leverage funding from the legislature to facilitate commercial logging on public lands. Scarce funds have been diverted from Massachusetts public land ecological and recreational stewardship goals as a result, for the purposes of constructing logging roads, mapping public forest land for timber production and other expenses to prepare the lands for logging. FSC is a net money loser for Commonwealth taxpayers, costing far more than any financial benefits, and represents a subsidy for the wood
products sector.11. FSC Certification has not provided the oversight and enforcement needed on MA forestry operations. Despite claims to be a performance based system, in practice it relaxes standards, adjusts deadlines and lavishes praise upon promises, progress and good intentions. Audits often rely on documentation from the members of the forestry staff themselves and thus do not attempt to maintain the claimed “independent” nature of the assessment.
12. FSC Certification is an unnecessary expense, an extra bureaucratic layer, and is not codified in state law, when what we need is stronger state laws and enforcement mechanisms defining a smaller percentage of state lands where exemplary forestry will set an example of performance to the highest standards.
Massachusetts Forest and Park Friends Network
www.networkingfriends.net
What biomass plants mean for MA forests
Impacts on Massachusetts' Forests if Proposed Biomass Incinerators Are Allowed at MA Forestwatch.org
Citizens Protest State's Biomass Study - Channel 22News Friday, 18 Dec 2009
Concerned Citizens of Russell & Russell Biomass Full Steam Ahead: Statement from Concerned Citizens of Russell
View Joe Zorzin's slide shows and videos on MA forest issues here.
NOW PLAYING:
Joe's one third rule of thumb for silviculture.
The Special Public Forests of Massachusetts
Manomet's presentation- Holyoke, MA on 12-17-09
Illegal cutting on state forest- the Zimmer property in Chesterfield
Bob Leverett shows some pines in MTSF
DCR Stewardship Council Meeting: 3-6-09
Uneven vs. Even aged silviculture
A Tale of Two Clearcuts
Why the Need for Resource Management Plans
Most friends agree that DCR needs to make completing Resource Management Plans its top priority; not Forest Resource Management Plans! We want natural, cultural and historic resource protection given priority over commercial timber harvesting; that means focusing interagency efforts to enforce current laws and regulations. Approved resource inventories and a plan to protect valuable resources needs to be inplace before allowing any new timber-sales, off-highway vehicle trails, or any other type of development.
The law governing forestry states, "The commissioner of conservation and recreation shall submit management plans to the stewardship council for the council’s adoption with respect to all reservations, parks, and forests under the management of the department, regardless of whether such reservations, parks, or forests lie within the urban parks district or outside the urban parks district. "The plans are to "provide for the protection and stewardship of natural and cultural resources." Please join us in insisting that DCR make protecting the lands we love its top priority. Insist on Resource Management Plans for each forest and park, especially state forests and parks subject to commercial timber harvesting! District Management Plans are not what the law requires.
Please contact the Stewardship Council through Jeff Daley and let them know that Resource Management Plans are important to you!
Resource Management Plans vs Forest Resource Management Plans
To date, DCR has completed only six Resource Management Plans, with one currently underway (click to view RMPs): Chestnut Hill Reservation, Adopted November 30, 2006; Mount Everettt State Reservation Summit RMP. Adopted March 2, 2006; Mount Watatic Reservation, Adopted January 4, 2008; National Monument to the Forefathers, Adopted September 29, 2006; Stony Brook Reservation, Adopted August 7, 2008; Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan, Adopted July 27, 2006; Beaver Brook Reservation, underway.
The Stewardship Council approved Distirct Forest Resource Management Plans for the Western Connecticut Valley District, the Northern Berkshire District, and the Southern Berkshire District. The Council had previously approved a fourth plan for the Central Berkshire District. Another four Forest Resource Management Plans are still being developed.
The problem is, we want site-specific Resource Management Plans first, as provided by the law!
Look at this from the Northern Berkshire District FMP page 25:
2. Purpose
This Forest Resource Management Plan (FRMP) partially meets the intent of MGL Chapter 21
Section 2F regarding the preparation of management plans by providing strategic sustainable
forest management direction for 15 DSPR system properties on 40,953 acres in the Northern Berkshire (NBK) District.Page 26 states:
Forest management planning and FRMPs are an important component of the overall
framework of DCR’s Resource Management Planning (RMP) Program. DCR’s RMP
Program is based upon M.G.L. Chapter 21: Section 2F, which requires DCR to develop
resource management plans for all agency reservations, parks and forests. The RMP
Program is located within the Office of Natural Resources and works across agency
divisions, bureaus and programs, and coordinates with the DCR Stewardship Council
regarding program development and adoption. FRMPs prepared by the Bureau of Forest
Fire Control and Forestry will be integrated into RMPs as RMPs are prepared and
completed for each DCR reservation, park or forest. For more information about the
RMP Program, please consult the following web page: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/rmp/.LOOK AT THIS:
The General Laws of Massachusetts
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE II. EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH
CHAPTER 21. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Chapter 21: Section 2F. Management guidelines for sustainable forestry practices on public and private forest lands
Section 2F. The directors of the divisions of state parks and recreation and urban parks and recreation shall work in cooperation with the director of the division of fisheries and wildlife within the department of fish and game to establish coordinated management guidelines for sustainable forestry practices on public forest lands within the departments of conservation and recreation and on private forest lands. Said guidelines for public forest lands shall include agreements on equipment, personnel transfers, operational costs, and assignment of specific management responsibilities.
The commissioner of conservation and recreation shall submit management plans to the stewardship council for the council’s adoption with respect to all reservations, parks, and forests under the management of the department, regardless of whether such reservations, parks, or forests lie within the urban parks district or outside the urban parks district. Said management plans shall include guidelines for the operation and land stewardship of the aforementioned reservations, parks and forests, shall provide for the protection and stewardship of natural and cultural resources and shall ensure consistency between recreation, resource protection, and sustainable forest management. The commissioner shall seek and consider public input in the development of management plans, and shall make draft plans available for a public review and comment period through notice in the Environmental Monitor. Within thirty days of the adoption of such management plans, as amended from time to time, the commissioner shall file a copy of such plans as adopted by the council with the state secretary and the joint committee on natural resources and agriculture of the general court.
The commissioner of conservation and recreation shall be responsible for implementing said management plans, with due regard for the above requirement.
Do you agree that Resourse Management Plans come before Forest Resource Management Plans? Please contact the Stewardship Council through Jeff Daley and let them know that Resource Management Plans are important to you!
Forests and Parks in Need of Friends!
Click here to view forests and parks in Western and Central Massachusetts in need of friends
Forests and parks in the Northeast District in need of friends
The Forests and parks in the state’s western and central districts have too few friends. DCR’s web site shows 25 parks in western district but lists only 3 “friends” contacts. In the central district, 31 forests and parks are listed but only six have listings for friends groups. So far Friends Network has been unable to verify that all of the groups listed are currently active.
We are working on the list of forests and parks in need of friends in every region of the state. Contact the Friends Network for information about friends groups not listed in the pdf above.
If you’ve ever thought of joining or starting a friends group we’re here to help! Please contact the Friends Network by clicking here.
DCR will help you start a friends group too. Conrad Crawford is the new Director of Partnerships at DCR. Conrad’s office is in Boston but he travels when needed across the state. You can find out more about DCR partnerships by calling Conrad (617) 626-4964 or email by clicking here.