DOCSLIB.ORG

Certificate Holder: Catalyst Paper Corp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Certificate Holder: Catalyst Paper Corp Certificate holder: Catalyst Paper Corp. Certification Body (CB): PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP FSC CW certificate code: PWC-CW-000405 Date of CB approval: Date of risk assessment: February 2018 Address of CB: 250 Howe Street, Suite 700, Vancouver, BC V6C 3S7 Certificate holder address: 3600 Lysander Lane, Richmond, BC, V7B 1C3 Districts, including countries covered with this Washington State – Darrington-Burlington-Everett areas risk assessment*: *NB! If sources of information, justification, and/or risk levels vary for different districts, separate tables shall be made for each district. Risk Category FSC Indicator Information Sources Used Brief justification Designation 1. Illegally Harvested 1.1 Evidence of enforcement of logging Washington State Forest Practice Rules Washington State Forest Practices Rules Wood The district of related laws in the district establish standards for forest practices such as origin may be considered timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, road low risk in relation to construction, fertilization, and forest chemical illegal harvesting when all application the following indicators related to forest Washington State DNR Forest Practices Board The Forest Practices Board adopts forest governance are present: practice rules designed to protect public resources such as water quality and fish habitat while maintaining a viable timber industry. Forest Practices Compliance Monitoring The Forest Practices Compliance Monitoring Program Program provides compliance audits and monitoring reports to the Forest Practices Board FSC Global to support the analysis of its rules and guidance. Registry - Low 1.2 There is evidence in the district Forest Practices Application Review System Washington has a Forest Practices Applications demonstrating the legality of harvests and permitting system for proposed forest activities wood purchases that includes robust and which provides information for regulatory and Catalyst effective systems for granting licenses and public review and risk assessment. Assessment - harvest permits. Low 1.3 There is little or no evidence or Chatham House-managed illegal logging There are no reports of illegal logging in reporting of illegal harvesting in the district information site Washington in the Chatham House-managed of origin. Illegal Logging Portal and the Environmental Environmental Investigation Agency Trust Investigation Agency Trust database Lacey Act The US Lacey Act makes the import and sale of illegally-produced timber illegal in its jurisdiction. 1.4 There is a low perception of corruption Transparency International 2016 CPI Report The United States scored 74 out of 100 and is related to the granting or issuing of ranked 18th in Transparency International’s 2016 harvesting permits and other areas of law Corruption Perceptions Index report. enforcement related to harvesting and wood trade. Page 1 of 5 Risk Category FSC Indicator Information Sources Used Brief justification Designation 2. Wood harvested in 2.1 There is no UN Security Council ban on UN Security Council There is no UN Security Council ban on timber violation of traditional timber exports from the country concerned; exports from Washington. or civil rights 2.2 The country or district is not designated Global Policy Forum Washington is not designated as a source of The district of origin may a source of conflict timber (e.g. USAID conflict timber by Global Policy Forum or Global be considered low risk in Type 1 conflict timber) Global Witness Witness. relation to the violation of 2.3 There is no evidence of child labour or Washington State Legislature – Child Labor Washington state legislation prohibits the use of traditional, civil and violation of ILO Fundamental Principles and child labor. collective rights when all Rights at work taking place in forest areas There is no evidence of violation of ILO the following indicators in the district concerned Fundamental Principles and Rights in the district. FSC Global are present: 2.4 There are recognized and equitable Tribal Relations Forest Practices Board rules promote Registry - Low processes in place to resolve conflicts of cooperative relationships and agreements with substantial magnitude pertaining to the tribes and direct DNR Forest Practices staff Catalyst traditional rights including use rights, to consult and cooperate with affected tribes cultural interests or traditional cultural when developing and implementing many parts Assessment - identity in the district concerned of the Forest Practices program. Low Treaty History and Interpretation There are a number of treaties with Washington tribes which provide reservation lands as well as off-reservation hunting and fishing rights 2.5 There is no evidence of violation of the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples While the US is not a signatory to ILO ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Convention 169, there is no evidence of violation Tribal Peoples taking place in the forest of indigenous peoples’ rights in the forests of areas in the district concerned. Washington. Page 2 of 5 Risk Category FSC Indicator Information Sources Used Brief justification Designation 3. Wood harvested from 3.1 Forest management activities in the WWF WildFinder forest in which high relevant level (eco-region, sub-eco-region, BC Mainland Coastal Forests Ecoregion The Darrington and Burlington district of origin conservation values are local) do not threaten eco-regionally includes the BC Mainland Coastal Forests, the threatened by significant high conservation values. Puget Lowland Forests Ecoregion Puget Lowland Forests, the Central & Southern management activities Cascades Forests and the Cascade Mountains The district of origin may Central & Southern Cascades Forests Leeward Forests Ecoregions. The WWF Global be considered low risk in Ecoregion 200 Ecoregional assessment status is relation to threat to high Critical/Endangered for the BC Mainland Coastal conservation values if: a) Cascade Mountain Leeward Forests Forests and the Puget Lowland Forests, FSC Global indicator 3.1 is met; or b) Ecoregion Vulnerable for the Central & Southern Cascades Registry – indicator 3.2 eliminates Forests and Relatively Stable/Intact for the Unspecified (or greatly mitigates) the Cascade Mountains Leeward Forests. See the threat posed to the assessment in 3.2 regarding the system of Catalyst district of origin by non- protection in place which mitigates the risk to Assessment – compliance with 3.1. and ensures survival of high conservation values Low (based on in the district of origin. 3.2 below) US Forest Service Ecoregions The district of origin is also in the Cascade Mixed Forest--Coniferous Forest--Alpine Meadow and Pacific Lowland Mixed Forest Provinces of the US Forest Service Ecoregions. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund There are no Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Biodiversity Hotspots in Washington. 3.2 A strong system of protection (effective BC Mainland Coastal Forests Ecoregion A small part of Washington state is in the BC protected areas and legislation) is in place Mainland Coastal Forests Ecoregion. It is that ensures survival of the HCVs in the estimated that approximately 40 % of this ecoregion. ecoregion remains as fully intact habitat. The Skagit Valley is a block of fully intact habitat that straddles the BC/Washington border. There are significant blocks of protected areas in the BC portion of the ecoregion. The overall risk to high FSC Global conservation values from forest management Registry – activities is therefore low for the ecoregion. Unspecified Puget Lowland Forests Ecoregion The Puget Lowland Forests Ecoregion lies within the most densely populated area of Washington Catalyst and BC. There are no sizable blocks of intact Assessment – habitat remaining in the region. The ecoregion is Low not a significant source of wood supply and, with the extent of urbanization and agricultural development in the ecoregion it is unlikely that forest management activities pose a significant threat to high conservation values. Page 3 of 5 Central & Southern Cascades Forests The Central & Southern Cascades Forests Ecoregion Ecoregion WWF Global 200 Ecoregional assessment status is Vulnerable as a result of fragmented landscapes where late-seral stages have been in decline, but are being addressed by a system of protection. Significant blocks of intact habitat in Washington include: • Mt. Rainier National Park • Goat Rocks Wilderness Area There are even more and larger blocks of protected intact habitat in the Oregon portion of the ecoregion. In addition, there are late-seral forest reserves in each national forest in the ecoregion protected under the President's Northwest Forest plan. The overall risk to high conservation values from forest management activities is therefore low for the ecoregion. Cascade Mountain Leeward Forests Nearly 70% of the Cascade Mountain Leeward Ecoregion Forests Ecoregion is considered as intact habitat. There are a number of significant protected areas in the ecoregion including: • North Cascades National Park • Ross Lake National Recreation Area • Lake Chelan National Recreation Area Given the intact nature of the ecoregion and the presence of protected areas (including significant areas in neighbouring BC), forest management activities do not pose a significant threat to high conservation values in the ecoregion. Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan Washington’s Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan seeks to provide long-term conservation of ESA covered species and support an economically
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Discovery Park
    Final Vegetation Management Plan Discovery Park Prepared for: Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation Seattle, Washington Prepared by: Bellevue, Washington March 5, 2002 Final Vegetation Management Plan Discovery Park Prepared for: Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation 100 Dexter Seattle, Washington 98109 Prepared by: 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, Washington 98005-1946 425/822-1077 March 5, 2002 This document should be cited as: Jones & Stokes. 2001. Discovery Park. Final Vegetation Management Plan. March 5. (J&S 01383.01.) Bellevue, WA. Prepared for Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle, WA. Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH........................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Approach .......................................................................................................................2 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND RECENT VEGETATION STUDIES ........................................3 2.1 A Brief Natural History of Discovery Park .........................................................................3 2.2 2001 Vegetation Inventory ...............................................................................................4 2.3 Results of Vegetation Inventory ........................................................................................4 2.3.1 Definitions ......................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Cheasty Greenspace Vegetation Management Plan
    Cheasty Greenspace Vegetation Management Plan Prepared For: City of Seattle Department of Parks & Recreation 1600 South Dakota Street Seattle, WA 98108-1546 Prepared By: 5031 University Way NE #204 Seattle, WA 98105 206.522.1214 July 2003 Cheasty Greenspace Vegetation Management Plan Prepared For: City of Seattle Department of Parks & Recreation 1600 South Dakota Street Seattle, WA 98108-1546 Prepared By: Marcia Fischer, Restoration Designer Kim Harper, Senior Wetland Ecologist Kevin O’Brien, Wildlife Biologist Sheldon & Associates Inc. 5031 University Way NE #204 Seattle, WA 98105 206.522.1214 July 2003 Acknowledgements Thanks to: EarthCorps for performing data collection Patrick Boland for performing data collection and site recons for ground-truthing of data Eliza Davidson for providing the maps for the VMP The outline and format of this document are based on the Sand Point Magnuson Park Vegetation Management Plan, by Sheldon & Associates, Inc., (2001). TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1.0 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Site Location and Context ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Greenspace Description................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 VMP Synopsis & User’s Guide......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 South Sound Course Outline
    WNPS Native Plant Stewardship Training South Puget Sound Lowlands, Spring 2016 WASHINGTON NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Native Plant Stewardship Training – South Puget Sound Lowlands Spring 2016 Coordinator and lead trainer Jim Evans Washington Native Plant Society, State Stewardship Program Manager 206-678-8914 [email protected] Class schedule Week Date Activity or Event Description 1 Tuesday, April 5 Class 1 See syllabus Saturday, April 9 Field Trip 1 Puget lowland forests, wetlands & riparian areas 2 Tuesday, April 12 Class 2 See syllabus 3 Monday, April 18 Class 3 See syllabus 4 Tuesday, April 26 Class 4 See syllabus Saturday, April 30 Field Trip 2 Clark’s Creek restoration site & other Pierce County natural areas 5 Tuesday, May 3 Class 5 See syllabus Saturday, May 7 Field Trip 3 Oak woodland and prairie ecosystem, Thurston County 6 Tuesday, May 10 Class 6 See syllabus Classes will meet from 6:30 – 9:00 P.M on the dates indicated above. at the Tacoma Nature Center at Snake Lake, 1919 South Tyler Street, Tacoma (http://www.metroparkstacoma.org/tacomanaturecenter/). Note that Class 3 will meet on a Monday; all other classes meet on Tuesdays. 1 WNPS Native Plant Stewardship Training South Puget Sound Lowlands, Spring 2016 FIELD TRIPS Field trips are an integral part of the stewardship training. Field trips are scheduled for the 1st, 4th, and 5th Saturdays during the course period. Meeting times and places and trip logistics will be announced during class. Field trips will be all-day excursions into local ecosystems, complementing and reinforcing topics covered in classroom sessions. Expect 5-6 hours of instruction, observation, and experience, in addition to travel time to and from our assembly area.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Sea Level Rise Mediated by Climate Change 7 8 9 10 Shaily Menon ● Jorge Soberón ● Xingong Li ● A
    The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com Biodiversity and Conservation Menon et al. 1 Volume 19, Number 6, 1599-1609, DOI: 10.1007/s10531-010-9790-4 1 2 3 4 5 Preliminary global assessment of biodiversity consequences 6 of sea level rise mediated by climate change 7 8 9 10 Shaily Menon ● Jorge Soberón ● Xingong Li ● A. Townsend Peterson 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 S. Menon 18 Department of Biology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan 49401-9403 USA, 19 [email protected] 20 21 J. Soberón 22 Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, The University of Kansas, 23 Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA 24 25 X. Li 26 Department of Geography, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA 27 28 A. T. Peterson 29 Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, The University of Kansas, 30 Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA 31 32 33 34 Corresponding Author: 35 A. Townsend Peterson 36 Tel: (785) 864-3926 37 Fax: (785) 864-5335 38 Email: [email protected] 39 40 The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com | DOI: 10.1007/s10531-010-9790-4 Menon et al. Biodiversity consequences of sea level rise 2 41 Running Title: Biodiversity consequences of sea level rise 42 43 Preliminary global assessment of biodiversity consequences 44 of sea level rise mediated by climate change 45 46 Shaily Menon ● Jorge Soberón ● Xingong Li ● A. Townsend Peterson 47 48 49 Abstract Considerable attention has focused on the climatic effects of global climate change on 50 biodiversity, but few analyses and no broad assessments have evaluated the effects of sea level 51 rise on biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Dlaflowerthesisfinal.Pdf
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology PROJECTING THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND MANAGEMENT IN FORESTS OF THE PUGET SOUND LOWLANDS A Thesis in Ecology by Danelle Laflower Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science August 2015 The thesis of Danelle Laflower was reviewed and approved* by the following: Matthew D. Hurteau Assistant Professor of Forest Resources, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management Thesis Advisor Margot W. Kaye Associate Professor of Forest Ecology, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management Katriona Shea Alumni Professor in the Biological Sciences, Department of Biology and Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics David Eissenstat Professor of Woody Plant Physiology Chair of Ecology Intercollege Graduate Degree Program *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Tree species have differential responses to changing climate, which may affect competitive interactions and alter species composition and forest carbon dynamics. In energy-limited systems, warming temperatures may lengthen growing season and increase water demand. In water-limited systems, increased evapotranspiration associated with warmer temperatures may limit species diversity and productivity. Management may help maintain productivity under changing climate by reducing competition for resources, increasing heterogeneity, and decreasing disturbance risk. I sought to quantify how projected changes in climate may alter the
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Priority Ecoregions for Amphibian Conservation in the U.S. and Canada
    Acknowledgements This assessment was conducted as part of a priority setting effort for Operation Frog Pond, a project of Tree Walkers International. Operation Frog Pond is designed to encourage private individuals and community groups to become involved in amphibian conservation around their homes and communities. Funding for this assessment was provided by The Lawrence Foundation, Northwest Frog Fest, and members of Tree Walkers International. This assessment would not be possible without data provided by The Global Amphibian Assessment, NatureServe, and the International Conservation Union. We are indebted to their foresight in compiling basic scientific information about species’ distributions, ecology, and conservation status; and making these data available to the public, so that we can provide informed stewardship for our natural resources. I would also like to extend a special thank you to Aaron Bloch for compiling conservation status data for amphibians in the United States and to Joe Milmoe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program for supporting Operation Frog Pond. Photo Credits Photographs are credited to each photographer on the pages where they appear. All rights are reserved by individual photographers. All photos on the front and back cover are copyright Tim Paine. Suggested Citation Brock, B.L. 2007. Identifying priority ecoregions for amphibian conservation in the U.S. and Canada. Tree Walkers International Special Report. Tree Walkers International, USA. Text © 2007 by Brent L. Brock and Tree Walkers International Tree Walkers International, 3025 Woodchuck Road, Bozeman, MT 59715-1702 Layout and design: Elizabeth K. Brock Photographs: as noted, all rights reserved by individual photographers.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate-Driven Changes in Forest Succession and the Influence of Management on Forest Carbon Dynamics in the Puget Lowlands of Washington State, USA ⇑ Danelle M
    Forest Ecology and Management 362 (2016) 194–204 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco Climate-driven changes in forest succession and the influence of management on forest carbon dynamics in the Puget Lowlands of Washington State, USA a b,⇑ c d c Danelle M. Laflower , Matthew D. Hurteau , George W. Koch , Malcolm P. North , Bruce A. Hungate a IGDP in Ecology and Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States b Department of Biology, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States c Center for Ecosystem Science and Society and Department of Biological Science, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, United States d USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis, CA 95618, United States article info abstract Article history: Projecting the response of forests to changing climate requires understanding how biotic and abiotic con­ Received 12 October 2015 trols on tree growth will change over time. As temperature and interannual precipitation variability Received in revised form 8 December 2015 increase, the overall forest response is likely to be influenced by species-specific responses to changing Accepted 14 December 2015 climate. Management actions that alter composition and density may help buffer forests against the Available online 21 December 2015 effects of changing climate, but may require tradeoffs in ecosystem services. We sought to quantify how projected changes in climate and different management regimes would alter the composition and Keywords: productivity of Puget Lowland forests in Washington State, USA. We modeled forest responses to four Carbon treatments (control, burn-only, thin-only, thin-and-burn) under five different climate scenarios: baseline Climate change LANDIS-II climate (historical) and projections from two climate models (CCSM4 and CNRM-CM5), driven by mod­ Succession erate (RCP 4.5) and high (RCP 8.5) emission scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • City Light ROW Routine Vegetation Management
    City of Bellevue Development Services Department Land Use Staff Report Proposal Name: City Light ROW Routine Vegetation Management Proposal Address: Parcels 8046100100, 1242700060, 3325059024, 1624059255, and 6072760220 Proposal Description: Critical Area Land Use Permit review of a Vegetation Management Plan to conduct routine vegetation maintenance on five (5) parcels within a Seattle City Light transmission line corridor. File Number: 21-102118-LO Applicant: Scott Luchessa Decisions Included: Critical Areas Land Use Permit (Process II. LUC 20.30P) Planner: David Wong, Associate Land Use Planner State Environmental Policy Act Threshold Determination: Determination of Non-Significance Issued (2010) Addendum (2021) Seattle City Light as Lead Agency Director’s Decision: Approval with Conditions ___________________________________Reilly Pittman, Acting Planning Manager Elizabeth Stead, Land Use Director Development Services Department ____________________________________________________________________________ Application Date: January 29, 2021 Notice of Application Publication Date: June 10, 2021 Decision Publication Date: July 1, 2021 Project/SEPA Appeal Deadline: July 15, 2021 For information on how to appeal a proposal, visit Development Services Center at City Hall or call (425) 452-6800. Comments on State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determinations can be made with or without appealing the proposal within the noted comment period for a SEPA Determination. Appeal of the Decision must be received in the City’s Clerk’s Office by 5 PM on the date noted for appeal of the decision. City Light Routine ROW Vegetation Management 21-102118-LO Page 1 I. Proposal Description The applicant is requesting a Critical Areas Land Use Permit for Vegetation management in order to conduct routine vegetation pruning and removal within a Seattle City Light transmission line corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Vertical Foliage Profile (VFP)
    1 Characterizing Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Vertical Foliage 2 Profile (VFP) over the United States 3 4 H. Tang 1, S. Ganguly2, G. Zhang2, M. A. Hofton1, R. F. Nelson3, and R. Dubayah1 5 [1] {Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 6 USA} 7 [2] {Bay Area Environmental Research Institute (BAERI) / NASA Ames Research Center, 8 Moffett Field, California, USA} 9 [3] {Biospheric Sciences Branch, Code 618, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, 10 Maryland, USA} 11 Correspondence to: H. Tang ([email protected]) 12 13 Abstract 14 Leaf area index (LAI) and vertical foliage profile (VFP) are among the important canopy 15 structural variables. Recent advances in lidar remote sensing technology have demonstrated the 16 capability of accurately mapping LAI and VFP over large areas. The primary objective of this 17 study was to derive and validate a LAI and VFP product over the contiguous United States 18 (CONUS) using spaceborne waveform lidar data. This product was derived at the footprint level 19 from the Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) using a biophysical model. We validated 20 GLAS derived LAI and VFP across major forest biomes using airborne waveform lidar. The 21 comparison results showed that GLAS retrievals of total LAI were generally accurate with little 22 bias (r2 = 0.67, bias = -0.13, RMSE = 0.75). The derivations of GLAS retrievals of VFP within 23 layers was not as accurate overall (r2 = 0.36, bias= -0.04, RMSE = 0.26), and these varied as a 24 function of height, increasing from understory to overstory - 0 to 5 m layer: r2 = 0.04, bias = 25 0.09, RMSE = 0.31; 10 to 15 m layer: r2 = 0.53, bias = -0.08, RMSE = 0.22; and 15 to 20 m layer: 26 r2 = 0.66, bias = -0.05, RMSE = 0.20.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSERVATION of BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Indicator 6
    Indicator 6 CRITERION 1: CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Indicator 6: The Number of Forest-Dependent Species Curtis H. Flather Taylor H. Ricketts Carolyn Hull Sieg Michael S. Knowles John P. Fay Jason McNees United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Flather and others, page 1 Indicator 6 ABSTRACT Flather, Curtis H.; Ricketts, Taylor H.; Sieg, Carolyn Hull; Knowles, Michael S.; Fay, John P.; McNees, Jason. 2003. Criterion 1: Conservation of biological diversity. Indicator 6: The number of forest-dependent species. In: Darr, D., compiler. Technical document supporting the 2003 national report on sustainable forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/ [2003, August]. This indicator monitors the number of native species that are associated with forest habitats. Because one of the more general sign of ecosystem stress is a reduction in the variety of organisms inhabiting a given locale, species counts are often used in assessing ecosystem wellbeing. Data on the distribution of 689 tree and 1,486 terrestrial animal species associated with forest habitats (including 227 mammals, 417 birds, 176 amphibians, 191 reptiles, and 475 butterflies) were analyzed. Species richness (number of species) is highest in the Southeast and in the arid ecoregions of the Southwest. Since the mid-1970s, trends in forest bird richness have been mixed. Ecoregions where forest bird richness has increased the greatest are found in the West and include the Great Basin, northern Rocky Mountains, northern mixed grasslands, and southwestern deserts. Declining forest bird richness has primarily occurred in the East, with notable areas of decline in the Mississippi lowland forests, the southeastern coastal plain, northern New England, southern and eastern Great Lake forests, and central tallgrass prairie.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Biological Diversity
    Indicator 6. Number of Forest-Dependent Species Number of Species 0 - 131 l No Data 132 - 386 0 - < 0.9 387 - 469 0.9 - < 1.0 470 - 539 1 - < 1.1 540 - 659 1.1 - < 1.4 >= 1.4 Figure 6-1. The number of tree and terrestrial animal species Figure 6-2. The estimated change in the number of forest- associated with forest habitats. (Data provided by NatureServe associated bird species from 1975 to 1999. Change is measured and World Wildlife Fund.) as l (1999 richness/1975 richness). Values of l >1.0 indicate increasing richness (green shades); values of l <1.0 indicate declining richness (red shades). (Data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division.) What Is the Indicator and Why Is It Important? trends in forest bird richness have been mixed (figure 6-2). Ecoregions where forest bird richness has This indicator monitors the number of native species increased the greatest are found in the West and that are associated with forest habitats. Because one include the Great Basin, northern Rocky Mountains, of the more general signs of ecosystem stress is a northern mixed grasslands, and southwestern deserts. reduction in the variety of organisms inhabiting a Declining forest bird richness has primarily occurred given locale, species counts are often used in assessing in the East, with notable areas of decline in the ecosystem wellbeing. The count of forest-associated Mississippi lowland forests, southeastern coastal species can change under two conditions: native plain, northern New England, southern and eastern species can become extinct or new species can colonize Great Lakes forests, and central tallgrass prairie.
    [Show full text]
  • SMTC DDS Public Summary Nov 22 2020.Pdf
    Public Summary Due Diligence System (DDS) Organisation name Structurlam Mass Timber Corporation (SMTC) Location 2176 Government Street, Penticton, British Columbia, Canada FSC certificate code CoC/CW Certificate Code (SCS-COC-005918) Contact person Caitlin MacNeil, CoC Administrator The DDS was developed by SMTC staff with the support of an external Prepared / assisted by consultant specializing in risk assessments, chain of custody, sustainable forest management certification systems. National Risk Assessment FSC-NRA-CAN V2-0 Date updated 11-22-2020 Scope & Purpose Structurlam Mass Timber Corporation (SMTC) is a Mass Timber manufacturer with several locations in the South Okanagan, British Columbia. SMTC produces Engineered Glue Laminated Wood Beams (Glulam) and Cross Laminated Wood Panels (Crosslam/CLT) using certified dimensional lumber, in certain instances we need to use controlled material. STRUCTURLAM is certified under FSC Chain of Custody and FSC Controlled Wood Certification. SMTC is implementing a Due Diligence System (DDS) to maintain conformance with the Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC®) Standard (FSC STD-40-005 V3.1) – Company Evaluation of Controlled Wood in order to avoid material from unacceptable sources. SMTC’s Purchase Program relies on our DDS to evaluate our lumber supply and ensure we avoid material from unacceptable sources. The purpose of the Public Summary is to present our DDS. 11-22-2020 SMTC – DDS Public Summary V1.0 Page 1 of 7 Supply Area The Supply Area from which SMTC sources material includes several sawmills in the interior of British Columbia (Figure 1: STRUCTURLAM's Supply Area). Figure 1: STRUCTURLAM's Supply Area 11-22-2020 SMTC – DDS Public Summary V1.0 Page 2 of 7 Risk of Mixing in the Supply Chain As indicated in Table 1: Nature of Supply Chain in SMTC Supply Area, STRUCTURLAM has a 1- or 2-Tier supply chain, procuring lumber directly from the supplier’s sawmill.
    [Show full text]