Forest Management Public Summary for Duke University, Duke Forest

 
 
Forest Management Public Summary for Duke University, Duke Forest
Forest Management Public Summary

                                               for

                          Duke University, Duke Forest


                        Certification Code: SW-FM/COC-175
                        Date of Certification: December 1, 2001
      Date of Public Summary: December 2001, updated for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005




              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




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.
Forest Management Public Summary for Duke University, Duke Forest
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.


1. GENERAL SUMMARY
       1.1.      Name and Contact Information
             Source Name: Duke University, Duke Forest
             Contact Person: Judson D. Edeburn, Resource Manager
             Address: Duke University, Box 90332, Durham, NC 27708-0332 USA
             Tel: 919.613.8013
             Fax: 919.684.8741
             E-mail: judeburn@duke.edu
             Website: http://taxodium.env.duke.edu/forest/history.html

       1.2.      General Background

        A.     Type of operation:

Duke Forest (DF) is a research, education, and demonstration forest owned by Duke University.
The DF objectives are to provide a broad array of ecological, biological, and forestry-related
research and teaching opportunities, protect unique plant and animal communities, and timber
harvesting.

        B.     Years in operation

Duke University has owned portions of the forest since the mid-1920s. It has been managing the
forest to provide for the above objectives since purchased, or approximately 75 years.

        C.     Date first certified
               December 1, 2001

        D.     Latitude and longitude of certified operation

36 degrees north and 79 degrees west

       1.3.      Forest and Management System

        A.     Forest type and land use history

Duke University began purchasing small farms and interspersed forestland as a buffer and
expansion lands for the campus and as an investment for the future. In 1931, roughly 4,696 acres
became Duke Forest when it was placed under the management of the School of Forestry. The
mission of the School was to advance graduate education in forestry in the southeastern United
States. The forest was managed to “demonstrate practical and economical techniques for
managing timber; develop an experimental forest for research in the sciences associated with
growing timber; and to provide an outdoor laboratory for students of forestry.” Dr. Clarence
Forest Management Public Summary for Duke University, Duke Forest
Korstian was the original Forest Director and established much of the basis on where it is today.
One result of meeting those objectives was that funds created by managing timber allowed the
School to purchase additional acreage over the years. The size of the Duke Forest now stands at
around 7,830 acres. As the School of Forestry gradually was incorporated into the Nicholas
School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, the objectives of Duke Forest have broadened to
encompass a broad variety of disciplines in the natural, biological, and environmental sciences.




                      Photo 1 – Dr. Clarence Korstian on the new Duke Forest

The Forest is located near the eastern edge of the North Carolina Piedmont plateau. Patterns of
vegetation were influenced significantly by past land use practices, particularly timber harvesting
and agriculture. Much of the DF was intensively managed for tobacco, corn, pasture, and, in
many cases, had been over-used to the point where it was allowed to revert to forest. There is
little remaining of the original vegetation with the exception of areas that were inaccessible or
difficult to farm or log. Four general forest types are found within the Duke Forest; upland
hardwood, bottomland hardwood, pine, and mixed pine-hardwood. Oak-hickory (Quercus-Carya
sp.) is the normal upland hardwood type found due to rocky, dry, and shallow soils. Bottomland
hardwoods consist primarily of yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweet gum
(Liquidambar stryciflua), with some minor areas of birch-sycamore (Betula-Platanus sp.) along
riparian areas and in extremely wet lowlands. Deep, well-drained soils support beech (Fagus
grandifolia), maple (Acer sp.), white oak (Quercus alba) and red oak (Quercus falcata). Pine
stands that result from old-field natural succession or planting consists primarily of loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda) with components of shortleaf (Pinus echinata) and Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiania). There is also a mature stand of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) planted on the basis
that it is in the northern most end of its range. In all, over 900 species of plants are present on the
forest, including more than 100 species of trees, about 30 species of mammals, 90 species of
breeding birds, 24 species of amphibians, and 30 species of reptiles. The forest contains some of
the best examples of mature, second-growth forest communities remaining in the North Carolina
Piedmont.
Forest Management Public Summary for Duke University, Duke Forest
Photo 2 – Mature Longleaf Pine Stand

        B.    Size of management unit and area in production forest, conservation, and/or
              restoration

Duke Forest consists of 7,830 acres (3,132 ha) of land available for forest management that
excludes “residual” parcels that are dedicated to highest and best use or other university research
facilities and disciplines. Of that, 1,986 acres (794 ha) are considered ecological reserves and
non-harvestable research sites, 1,425 acres (570 ha) are conservation zones namely aesthetic
management zones (AMZ), streamside management zones (SMZ), and historical or
archaeological sites. That leaves the remaining 64%, or 4,419 acres (1,768 ha) dedicated to
active forest management. This management focuses on providing a good distribution of age
classes and stand composition for research, education, and demonstration needs, and revenue
generation to cover the cost of operations and management.




                           Photo 3 – FACTS-1 Carbon Research Project

The Forest is divided into eight different Divisions or Tracts with the largest being the Durham
Division consisting of 2,452 acres (980 ha) having a single contiguous block and several smaller
parcels and narrow strips all within Durham and Orange Counties. This Division includes the
Duke Homestead section that surrounds the Primate Center and the oldest portions of the Forest,
acquired primarily between 1925 and 1947. The Korstian Division is the second largest, around
1,933 acres (773 ha), and contains the New Hope Creek corridor and the Henry J. Oosting
Natural Area, which were acquired from 1925 to 1948. The Division is situated in the Chapel
Hill Township of Orange County. Blackwood Division also is in the Chapel Hill Township of
Orange County, is made up of 1,019 acres (407 ha) in several parcels and was acquired between
Forest Management Public Summary for Duke University, Duke Forest
the years of 1944 and 1959. The Eno Division is located in the Eno and Chapel Hill Townships
of Orange County and is 484 acres (194 ha). Hillsboro Division is 582 acres (233 ha) situated in
the Cheeks and Hillsborough townships of Orange County and is divided by the Eno River,
which flows in a southerly direction through the property. In 1966, the Duke Power Company
donated 1,360 acres (544 ha) in Chatham County to the University that became the Haw River
Division. Of this, 420 acres (168 ha) were sold to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the B.
Everett Jordan Reservoir Project and another 3-4 acres (1-2 ha) as a canoe launch area managed
by the county. The remaining Tract is the Dailey Tract located in Pleasant Grove Township of
Alamance County totaling 430 acres (172 ha).


                                 Table 1: Forest Use by Area

                     Forestland Use           Acres (ac)     Hectares
                                                               (ha)
                     Productive forests            4,419         1,768
                     Conservation zones            1,425            570
                     Reserves                      1,986            794
                     Total forest area             7,830         3,132

        C.   Annual allowable cut (AAC) and/or annual harvest covered by management
             plan

In the early 1980s Duke Forest used stratified random sampling to inventory its holdings and
found that the forest consists of nine strata, resulting from combinations of cover types and ages
identifiable from cover maps of the Divisions. Specific strata identified were:

•   Loblolly pine stands, 0 to 40 years of age
•   Loblolly pine stands, greater than 40 years of age, including uneven-aged stands
•   Mixed conifer stands, other than loblolly pine, 0 to 60 years of age
•   Mixed conifer stands, greater than 60 years of age
•   Mixed conifer stands, uneven aged
•   Mixed pine and hardwood stands, all ages
•   Mixed hardwood stands, except oak, all ages
•   Oak stands, all ages
•   Non-forested areas

Sampling points for each Division and strata were chosen to estimate total timber volume within
each strata to a 10% allowable error with a 95% probability. Data collected from each point
included species, diameter at breast height (DBH), total height for pines, merchantable height for
hardwoods, estimates of form and crown class, and two increment cores for each point to
calculate growth. Calculations from this information it indicated that there were 22,903 cords of
pine pulpwood, 59,154 thousand board feet (MBF) (236,616 m3) of pine sawtimber, hardwood
pulpwood totaling 19,040 cords and hardwood sawtimber in the amount of 34,099 MBF (136,396
m3) standing in the inventoried area in 1981. Growth estimates were based on tree cores and
calculated using stand tables. Generally on pine sites, 116 cubic feet of wood is being produced
annually; on mixed hardwood sites 59 cubic feet, and on oak sites 30 cubic feet. Using this
information, the maximum annual sustainable harvest for hardwood sawtimber was established at
715 MBF (2,860 m3), for hardwood pulpwood 500 cords, pine sawtimber with chip-n-saw 1,726
MBF (6,904 m3) and pine pulpwood 934 cords (Table 2). Removing volume for those acreages
designated as conservation zones and reserves further refined this annual sustainable harvest so
that the recommended annual harvest volume is 240 MBF (960 m3) for hardwood sawtimber and
Forest Management Public Summary for Duke University, Duke Forest
1,000 MBF (4,000 m3) for pine sawtimber. The only instances where this volume has actually
been harvested or exceeded in any one year during the past decade occurred after catastrophic
disturbance events such as Hurricane Fran in September, 1996, a major tornado in November,
1992, and a 1993 southern pine beetle epidemic. The average annual harvest for that 10-year
period is 222,598 BF (890 m3) for hardwood sawtimber, 289 cords of hardwood pulpwood,
927,371 BF (3,709 m3) for pine sawtimber, and 546 cords of pine pulpwood.


                      Table 2: Allowable Cut and Actual Harvest Levels

                      Maximum Sustainable         Recommended Sustainable         Average Annual
                            Harvest                      Harvest                     Harvest
                          (Annually)                    (Annually)                (Last 10 Years)
Hrdwd Sawtimber            2,860 m3                       960 m3                      890 m3
Hrdwd Pulpwood             500 cords                       ------                   289 cords
Pine Sawtimber             6,904 m3                      4,000 m3                    3,790 m3
Pine Pulpwood              934 cords                       ------                   546 cords

The Forest has conducted a new inventory within the last year to update growth and yield
information and is analyzing it to determine any changes. The general feeling is that the actual
growth on the forest has increased by having more plantations in younger age classes than during
the 1980s inventory and the use of thinnings to increase stand vigor and growth.

        D.    General description of details and objectives of the management plan/system

The original management plan for Duke Forest was prepared in 1981 by the Forest staff. In the
past, there had been significant detailed records that had been kept of activities on the Forest and
data collected over a long period of time. This was the first effort to consolidate this information
into a comprehensive management plan that outlined the purposes of the Duke Forest. The plan
had not been revised until May 2001 and was to accommodate the needs of the certification
assessment. That process resulted in the addition of addenda to address specific issues relating to
FSC and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) requirements. Because of this effort and a newly
updated inventory, the complete plan is in the process of being revised with anticipated
completion within a year.

Duke Forest has a primary mission of providing research, education, and demonstration
opportunities for faculty, students, and other research institutions. Thus there is an overriding
goal to ensure that there are representative samples of various ecosystems present on the forest of
such size and age configuration and distribution to provide research and training sites now and in
the future. Because of this, there have been many research projects involving plantation spacing,
growth and yield, thinning techniques, and regeneration methods that have contributed
significantly to the forestry sciences. More recently, work in the fields of microclimatology,
forest succession, population dynamics, and nutrient cycling has become an increasing
component of studies conducted on the Forest. The forest is in regular use as a laboratory for
teaching students in forestry and environmental sciences during the course of undergraduate and
graduate studies. Since 1976, the Duke Forest has been included in a nationwide network of
research sites selected by The Institute of Ecology to provide a wide range of conditions and
habitat types available for long-term scientific research in a multitude of disciplines. More
specifically, as an Experimental Ecological Reserve, it “is a field site representative of an
important natural system which is dedicated for long-term experimental research…(and)
identified as critical to providing support for future ecological research and application to
problems of national concern.”
Forest Management Public Summary for Duke University, Duke Forest
Photo 4 – Sign depicting purpose of Duke Forest

In addition, a primary consideration of the Forest is to protect sites containing unique plant
species or communities to “ensure areas of ecological significance are available for long-term
study and that irreplaceable biota is not destroyed.” Significant acreage of the Forest is set aside
from harvesting for this purpose, including the Oosting Natural Area, all areas identified by the
N. C. Natural Heritage Program as potentially containing sensitive species or communities,
AMZs, SMZs, and a series of permanent plots that have served as a long-term ecological data
source for evaluating plant community succession. These plots have provided valuable
information on the changes in the Forest over time. The Forest also is included in the Orange
County land use planning efforts and the staff has been active participants in this process.

Another objective of Duke Forest is economic. Since establishment of the Forest, it has been
operated as a separate self-supported institution. As such, it has provided revenue through the
sale of forest products to cover operating costs and the purchase of additional lands to expand the
boundaries of the Forest. Revenues are obtained from harvesting available areas using a
multitude of silvicultural techniques to demonstrate various harvest methods and to maintain
healthy timber stands. Techniques include seed tree, shelterwood, thinning, clearcuts, group
selection, individual tree selection, and salvage. Generally pine plantations are managed on a 50-
55 year rotation with a goal of growing high quality sawtimber. Hardwood stands for the most
part are included in conservation zones or reserves, although there are some that could be
managed for forest products. Currently, little hardwood silviculture is practiced. Harvesting
systems used are primarily ground equipment. Forest products are sold based on lump-sum
(timber deeds) for those areas large enough, or by direct sale as a percentage of stumpage for
smaller operations. Timber deeds normally go to local brokers or mills, while the smaller sales
are often conducted by small logging operations through direct contract. The road system has
been intact for decades and little new construction occurs unless to facilitate a research project.
Photo 6- Clearcut Harvest Unit
Photo 5 – Patch Shelterwood Cut

Finally, a major management objective is recreational use of the DF. Despite being private
property, the University allows and manages uses for recreation and provides some picnic
facilities and trails as long as recreation doesn’t negatively impact the ecological attributes being
managed for and forest operations. Most forest roads are also available for hiking and biking,
although vehicular traffic by the public is restricted. Due to a significant increase in population
of Durham and Orange Counties surrounding the Duke Forest (22.8% and 26.2% over the last 10
years, respectively), there has been a coinciding increase in use of the forest for recreation
purposes. Because of this and past threats to the Forest from development there have been some
interactions between the Duke Forest staff and stakeholders to try and resist these efforts. Also,
several studies have been done by the Duke Forest staff to gather various data relating to forest
users.

The Duke Forest is administered under the auspices of the Executive Vice President of Duke
University who serves as Chair of the Duke Forest Advisory Committee, and the Provost who is
responsible for budgetary issues. The Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and the
Duke Forest Advisory Committee actively assist in providing direction for Forest activities.
Staffing consists of a Resource Manager, Program Coordinator, Forestry Technician, Grounds
and Maintenance Supervisor, part-time secretary, graduate students, and various part-time and
seasonal student assistants.

        1.4.    Environmental and Socioeconomic Context
Originally known as Trinity College. Duke University is located in Durham, North Carolina in
the eastern Piedmont plateau region of the state. Property acquisition incorporated into Duke
Forest dates back to the mid 1920s when President Few and Duke University benefactor James B.
Duke set out to buy land to accommodate future expansion of the College. They purchased poor
quality, abandoned corn and tobacco farmland, old fields, and small tracts of forestland.
Fortuitously, a portion of this land was incorporated into the Duke Forest totaling 4,696 acres.
Today, Duke University’s Duke Forest consists of six Divisions (Blackwood, Durham, Eno,
Korstian, Hillsboro, and Haw River) and two Tracts in 4 counties (Alamance, Chatham, Durham,
and Orange) and is 7,830 acres (3,132 ha). Duke Forest contains a number of historical and
cultural resources. Artifacts from Indigenous Peoples and those who followed are dispersed
throughout its six Divisions.
Photo 7 – Historic road crossing in stream

Clarence F. Korstian, a senior silviculturalist in the U.S. Forest Service, was named as the first
director of the Duke Forest in 1930. Dr. Korstian, who also became the Dean of the School of
Forestry, was responsible for developing the first Duke Forest management plan and setting
policy precedents that exist today. Since 1931, Duke Forest has provided continuous teaching
and research opportunities and demonstration areas for Duke University faculty and students.
Other universities, schools, and various organizations and agencies also use the Duke Forest for
education and research. The School of Forestry has been incorporated into the Nicholas School
of the Environment and Earth Sciences. The Forest operation, from a commercial timber
perspective, is considered to be a small to medium sized operation.

Once a rural area, the Duke Forest locale has experienced unprecedented growth in recent years.
Areas around the Durham and Korstian Divisions are almost exclusively developed. The Eno
Division is 80% surrounded by development. Many of the challenges for the Duke Forest lie in
confronting the urban and suburban growth that will occur around the remaining Divisions. The
Office of the Duke Forest has taken the initiative to become involved with regional activities
attempting to preserve the landscape and its ecology. The most significant endeavor thus far is
their participation in the New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan for the region.

Judson D. Edeburn, the current Duke Forest Resource Manager, attempts to maintain relations
with community stakeholders (e.g., adjoining landowners) by identifying disputes in their early
stages. In the recent past disputes have been minimal, but with the development of property
adjacent to the Forest, they are likely to increase. The Resource Manager has resolved a few
property line disputes. Settlement with the landowners involved splitting the difference relative
to the area in dispute. In one boundary dispute, on the Haw River Division, Duke Forest feels
they have a solid case and are considering proceeding through legal channels to resolve the
dispute.

Individuals, usually adjoining landowners, affected by management operations are notified and
apprised of proposed forestry activities (e.g., logging, burning, spraying, and increased traffic)
and associated environmental and aesthetic effects to solicit their comments or concerns. For
logging, burning, and spraying operations in more remote portions of Duke Forest no notification
occurs. However, when operations occur near dwellings, buildings, and forested and non-
forested properties of adjoining landowners the Resource Manager of Duke Forest will notify
them personally. Contact information is also provided to landowners during the visit. There
were many examples of where the Duke Forest staff has tried to accommodate their neighbors. In
some cases buffers in Duke Forest adjoining private property have been increased to provide a
measure of safety or aesthetic screening for the neighboring landowner.
Significant archaeological sites and areas of cultural, historical, or community significance, are
identified, catalogued, and mapped as stated in the Duke Forest management plan. Consultation
with state archaeological offices, universities, and local experts does occur. The Orange County
Preservation Commission has been involved with some sites. Various graduate student or student
intern research projects have focused on these special sites. A number of archeological and
historical sites are studied and recorded on the Korstian Division by the research labs of the Duke
University Anthropology Department. The University of North Carolina has studied a number of
archaeological sites in Orange County. They are designated as special management zones by
Duke Forest and protected during harvest operations and often maintained, to the extent possible,
after natural disturbances such as hurricanes. The policy, as stated in the management plan, is
that all sites are to remain undisturbed by the general public. Duke Forest does not advertise their
location.

The Duke Forest staff allows well-established customary and lawful uses of the forest consistent
with conservation of the forest resource and the objectives (i.e., teaching, research,
demonstration) as stated in the management plan. Customary uses of the land (e.g., cemeteries)
have been incorporated into the forest management plan and are protected from forest practices.
There is no hunting or trapping on Duke Forest however, a number of recreational pursuits (e.g.,
jogging, biking, bird watching, walking or hiking, horseback riding, fishing, and picnicking) are
engaged in by faculty, staff, and students of Duke University and individuals residing in local
communities in North Carolina and elsewhere. Past recreational use studies estimated visitation
at 150,000 activity days in 1980 and 300,000 in 1991. A new study is being initiated in 2001.
Traditionally, there are no formal easements associated with Duke Forest. However, the Duke
Forest staff has permitted “informal” easements for neighbors requiring access across DF.
Periodically, Duke Forest will revoke these easements for short intervals to exert its ownership
over the property and to avoid possible attempts at adverse possession.




                               Photo 8 – Large, mature loblolly pine

Various individuals, interest groups, and other stakeholders have supported the Forest over the
years. These concerned groups have countered development and University policy that has
threatened the Forest in the past. Along with developments that surround the Forest there have
been some problems with vandalism and poaching. Also, various forest practices (e.g.,
prescribed burning, herbicide spraying) have had to be curtailed or carried out with considerable
effort due to the close proximity of housing developments, commercial enterprises, and public
roads. The future success of the Forest hinges, in part, on developing strong, positive
relationships with their recently arrived neighbors (e.g., adjoining landowners) and building
support within the University (i.e., administration, faculty) and among the various stakeholder
groups (e.g., schools, environmental groups, county commissioners, forestry-related and other
businesses).
1.5.      Products Produced

        A.     Species and volumes covered by the certificate

                                     Table 3: Certified Production

              Species          Scientific name    Volume (10 yr avg.)           Product
        Pine sawtimber        Pinus sp.               3,709 m3                    logs
        Pine pulpwood         Pinus sp.               546 cords                   logs
        Hardwood              Quercus sp.              211 m3                     logs
        sawtimber
                              Liriodendron sp.           115 m3
                              Mixed hardwood             564 m3
        Hrdwd pulpwood        Multiple species          289 cords                 logs

Data concerning volume of Quercus species removed was available for six out of the ten years.
Data regarding the volume of Liriodendron removed was available for five of the ten years.
Percentages were used to extrapolate out the volume figures in order to determine the ten-year
average for the individual species.

        B.     Description of current and planned processing capacity

There is no processing capacity associated with Duke Forest. Forest products are sold to local
loggers, timber brokers, or sawmills, who then merchandize the logs based on grade and product.
There are no plans for adding such facilities in the future.


2. CERTIFICATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS
        2.1.      Assessment Dates (2001)

May 3                    Stakeholder public notices distribution starts (e-mail, FAX, and mail)
June 3                   Initial team planning
June 4 - 7               Field assessment at Duke Forest
June 8                   Begin report write-up and continue stakeholder interactions (e-mails and
                         interviews)
June 21                  Public stakeholder meeting in Triangle Research Park, N. C.
August 17                Draft report to Duke Forest for initial review and fact-
                         checking/comments
May, June, July          Comments received from stakeholders
September 1              Comments received from Duke Forest
September 10             Draft report to peer reviewers and SmartWood headquarters
November 19              Comment back from peer reviewers
November 25              Final draft submitted to SW Certification Committee
November                 Certification Contract signed and received by SmartWood

        2.2.      Assessment Team and Peer Reviewers

•   Loy Jones, Team Leader, B.S. in Forest Management, 23 years international experience in
    forestry and environmental assessments and impacts. Mr. Jones is the Manager of the
    SmartWood Southern USA Region and has been a Team Leader for forest management and
    chain of custody certification assessments, specialist in environmental impact of forestry
operations (for both natural forest management and plantation forestry), community forestry
    and certification.

•   Joe Hamrick, Landscape Biologist – Joe Hamrick currently works for Raven Environmental
    Services Inc. of Huntsville, Texas - an environmental and forest management consultancy
    specializing in endangered species management, forest management and habitat planning, and
    environmental assessments. Prior to joining Raven, Mr. Hamrick was employed by Temple-
    Inland Forest Products Corporation for a period of eighteen years. During that time he held
    positions as Operations Manager of the Selection Forest Management Group responsible for
    all selectively harvested acres in Texas and Louisiana; Manager of Forest Practices for the 2.2
    million acres in Temples’ ownership; Area Biologist for the Southern and Eastern Regions;
    and Operations Manager of Scrappin’ Valley - the corporations’ 10,400-acre forest and
    wildlife demonstration area. Joe serves on the Texas Forestry Association Board of Directors.
    He has also served on both the Texas and Louisiana Habitat Conservation Planning
    Committees for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Mr. Hamrick is a 1979 graduate
    of Texas A and M University with a B.S. Degree in Landscape Architecture and currently
    resides in Lufkin, Texas.

•   Stephen C. Grado, Forest Economics/Sociology, Ph.D. Dr. Steve Grado obtained an
    undergraduate degree in Political Science from Villanova University in 1971. After working
    in the business field for five years, he went on to study forestry in the School of Forest
    Resources at Penn State University where he was employed as a research assistant from 1982
    to 1995. During this period he was involved with various research projects covering such
    diverse areas as biomass production, recreation, and heritage tourism. Through teaching and
    research experience and on the job training, he has gained an expertise in economic issues
    related to natural resource systems. He completed a Master's degree at Penn State University
    in Forest Science and Operations Research in 1984 and received a Ph.D. from the Penn State
    School of Forest Resources in 1992. Currently, he holds a position as an Associate Professor
    of Forestry at Mississippi State University. His expertise, as a natural resource economist, is
    specializing in issues relating to multiple-use forest management, outdoor recreation, human
    dimensions, agroforestry, short-rotation forestry, and tourism.

•   Edward G. Farnworth, Ecology, Ph.D. – Dr. Farnworth obtained an undergraduate degree in
    Biology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook, a Master of Sciences in
    Entomology and Zoology and a Ph.D. in Entomology and Ecology, both from the University
    of Florida. After a Post Doctoral Fellowship in Ecology at the University of Georgia’s
    Institute of Ecology he joined the faculty of the Institute and spent ten years in research in
    forest productivity, structure and functioning of wetlands, particularly fresh water tidal
    marshes and riparian systems, and the application of ecological principles to development
    issues. He worked for 11 years as senior ecologist and senior environmental advisor with the
    InterAmerican Development Bank dealing with environment/development issues in Latin
    America and the Caribbean. His expertise includes management and conservation of natural
    resource; watershed management; coastal zone management; environmental impact
    assessment; wetlands protection and function; environmental and natural resources policy;
    environment/development policy; environmental issues and solutions in transportation,
    energy, water supply, sewage, solid waste management and agriculture; and environmental
    institution development. Farnworth is currently an independent consultant in environment
    and development.

    Two different peer reviews were sought for this assessment. The peer reviewers included:
1. Senior ecologist, silviculture, and/or researcher from southeastern USA with extensive
          field and research experience with both public and private agencies.
       2. Senior forester from the southeast USA, with long-term indigenous forest
          conservation and management experience.

       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 – The team prepared for the assessment by conducting
          research concerning Indigenous Peoples, reviewing the management plan, and other
          documents provided by Duke Forest.

       2) Selection of Sites – In the initial meeting with the DF staff the team described the
          attributes of areas that needed to be visited. The Duke Forest staff then offered site
          alternatives that provided an opportunity to observe various activities, age classes,
          land uses, and operations. Specifically, there was an effort to see sites that had a range
          of silviculture activities located within the forest, that were protected as conservation
          zones or biological reserves, that had uses that could impact forest management, that
          were representative of forest types within the forest boundaries, and that were
          distributed across the different Forest Divisions.
       3) Field Interviews and Site Reviews – The team met with the Resource Manager,
          Forest Technician, Grounds and Maintenance Supervisor, faculty from the Nicholas
          School of the Environment, graduate students, and student interns at the Duke Forest
          office on the West Campus in Durham, North Carolina. Many of these individuals
          were present during field visits as well. While in the office portion of the assessment,
          the team reviewed various documents such as the management plan, local government
          land-use planning material, inventory information, maps of the Forest, documents
          relating to harvest activities, and other information the team felt was required to
          conduct an objective assessment. Field visits were conducted on the sites listed in
          Table 4.


          Table 4. Summary of Forest Areas and Areas Visited by SmartWood Assessors

          Forest/Block Name                    Total Area                  Assessment Site
                                          Ac                Ha              Description
        Durham Division
         C-54                            1.5                 .6              Shelterwood
         C-72                             8                 3.2              Natural Area
         C-47                             9                 3.6              Shelterwood
         C-39                             8                 3.2               Thinning
        Haw River Division
         C-5 & 6                          25                10                 Clearcut
        Korstian Division
         Oosting Natural Area            160             64.8              Natural Preserve
         C-12                            12              4.8                  Plantation
         C-17                            12              4.8                  Plantation
         C-18                             5               2                    Clearcut
         C-30                            9.4             3.8                  Plantation
        Blackwood Division
C-7                             13.6             5.4                  Thinning
         C-6                             14.3             5.7                  Thinning
         C-2                              20              8.1                  Sale Area
        Hillsboro Tract
         C-6                              6               2.4                Rock Quarry
         C-6                              65              26             Trespass and Tornado
                                                                               Damage
        TOTALS                           334.4           148.4

       4) Assessment Report Development – The assessment report was developed over a 30-
          day period after the fieldwork was completed. Throughout this write-up period the
          assessors continued to conduct stakeholder interviews and other research.

       5) Peer and Candidate Operation Review of the Report – The final draft report was
          reviewed by Duke Forest staff and three independent peer reviewers (normal FSC
          requirement is two).

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

        2.4.    Guidelines

This assessment report is based on the FSC Principles, Criteria, and Indicators as presented to the
team by the Team Leader. The document used was titled SmartWood Generic Guidelines for
Assessing Forest Management, Southern USA Region (May 2001). The Team Leader explained
that this document is a compilation of the following:

    1. SmartWood “Generic Guidelines for Assessing Forest Management” (March 2000);
    2. FSC-US National Indicators as adopted by the Board of Directors (February 2001);
    3. Elements of the draft standards for the Southeast USA determined by SmartWood for
        inclusion; and
    4. Field tests of the guidelines on several forest management operations in the region.

At a minimum, these guidelines are based upon SmartWood’s “Generic Guidelines for Forest
Assessment” which have been reviewed and accredited by the FSC.

        2.5.    Stakeholder consultation process and results

The purpose of the stakeholder consultation strategy for this assessment was threefold:
    1. Ensure the public is aware of and informed about the assessment process and its
        objectives,
    2. Assist the field assessment team in identifying potential issues, and
    3. 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.
The assessment of Duke University’s Duke Forest involved a stakeholder review process that
  incorporated input from both local and regional stakeholders. Notice of the assessment, public
  meetings, and requests for comments on the forest organization’s operations were first distributed
  to Duke Forest stakeholders the first week in May. Subsequent e-mail and postal mail notices
  with updated information on the stakeholder meetings were mailed out prior to the field
  assessment on May 30, 2001 (e-mail) and June 1, 2001 (postal mail). During the assessment
  process (June 4 to June 9, 2001), local stakeholders were contacted individually and invited to
  comment. In addition, two public meetings were held, in the Cedar Mountain Community
  Center, near Dupont State Forest on June 14, 2001 and at the MCNC auditorium, Research
  Triangle Park, Durham County. Notification of these meetings without the details was sent to the
  stakeholders 42, and 49 days in advance respectively, and at 14 and 21 days with meeting details.
  A survey to incorporate stakeholder input was developed and brought to the two public meetings
  (23 surveys were given out at these meetings), mailed to 927 stakeholders, and e-mailed to 58
  addresses, some of which were group addresses. A request was made to return the completed
  surveys by July 15, 2001. The formal report process for receiving stakeholder comments was
  until July 30, 2001, approximately three months. During this time, the SmartWood list of
  stakeholders was expanded as more interested parties asked to participate.
             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 issues identified by the assessment team with a brief discussion of
  each based upon specific interviews, public meeting comments, and surveys.
                                 Table 5: Stakeholder Comments

 FSC Principle              Stakeholder Comments                            SmartWood Response
P1: FSC             Stakeholders gave no comments.                Deeds for all properties are held in two
Commitment/                                                       different locations, the University and in
Legal                                                             county court houses. The DF will defend
Compliance                                                        their property boundaries through the legal
                                                                  counsel of Duke University.

                                                                  The DF Resource Manager, provided
                                                                  detailed summary information on land titles
                                                                  including the file number corresponding
                                                                  with original title held by the Duke
                                                                  University Real Estate Administration
                                                                  Office, grantor of the property, and date of
                                                                  acquisition.
P2: Tenure & Use There were no comments from stakeholders       The deeds for all properties are held in two
Rights &         on land disputes.                              different locations, the University and in
Responsibilities                                                county court houses. The DF will defend
                 There was general acceptance of the            their property boundaries through the legal
                 recreational opportunities afforded to the     counsel of Duke University.
                 public as 79% (n=81) of those who
                 responded to the stakeholder survey were       Since Duke University is a private
                 satisfied with forest management’s             institution, there is no legal or
                 approach to providing recreation.              customary/traditional rights to own,
                                                                manage, or use forest resources (timber and
                   The DF staff needs to initiate a process or  non-timber) on DF on the part of the local
                   strategy for developing relationships with   communities. The DF formal policy is that
                   organized stakeholder groups. Twenty-        these activities are prohibited from taking
                   two percent (n=23) of those who responded    place. Of course, exceptions are made to
                   to the stakeholder survey expressed a desire accommodate the public.
                   for     better   public     relations   and
                   communications with Duke Forest. Settlement with the landowners on property
                   Thirteen percent were unable to respond to issues involved splitting the difference
                   this issue.                                  relative to the area in dispute. In one case,
                                                                on the Haw River Division, DF feels they
                   There were several “Neighbors” who           have a solid case and are considering
                   expressed that they had had problems with whether to proceed through available legal
                   DF on a number of issues ranging from        channels to settle the dispute.
                   harvesting, access issues, and deer
                   problems.                                    Protocol for dealing with landowner
                                                                disputes specific to DF is not written into a
                                                                policy and, as a result, there is no formal
                                                                system in place to deal with such disputes.

                                                                Duke Forest needs to develop a proactive
                                                                strategy for capturing stakeholder attitudes,
                                                                opinions, and perceptions of DF and its
                                                                operations.    This includes a continual
                                                                updating of stakeholder lists.

P2: Tenure & Use There were no comments from stakeholders       The deeds for all properties are held in two
Rights &         on land disputes.                              different locations, the University and in
Responsibilities                                                county court houses. The DF will defend
                 There was general acceptance of the            their property boundaries through the legal
                 recreational opportunities afforded to the     counsel of Duke University.
                 public as 79% (n=81) of those who
                 responded to the stakeholder survey were       Since Duke University is a private
                 satisfied with forest management’s             institution, there is no legal or
                 approach to providing recreation.              customary/traditional rights to own,
                                                                manage, or use forest resources (timber and
                   The DF staff needs to initiate a process or  non-timber) on DF on the part of the local
                   strategy for developing relationships with   communities. The DF formal policy is that
                   organized stakeholder groups. Twenty-        these activities are prohibited from taking
                   two percent (n=23) of those who responded    place. Of course, exceptions are made to
                   to the stakeholder survey expressed a desire accommodate the public.
                   for     better   public     relations   and
                   communications with Duke Forest. Settlement with the landowners on property
Thirteen percent were unable to respond to issues involved splitting the difference
                    this issue.                                relative to the area in dispute. In one case,
                                                               on the Haw River Division, DF feels they
                    There were several “Neighbors” who         have a solid case and are considering
                    expressed that they had had problems with whether to proceed through available legal
                    DF on a number of issues ranging from      channels to settle the dispute.
                    harvesting, access issues, and deer
                    problems.                                  Protocol for dealing with landowner
                                                               disputes specific to DF is not written into a
                                                               policy and, as a result, there is no formal
                                                               system in place to deal with such disputes.

                                                                   Duke Forest needs to develop a proactive
                                                                   strategy for capturing stakeholder attitudes,
                                                                   opinions, and perceptions of DF and its
                                                                   operations.    This includes a continual
                                                                   updating of stakeholder lists.

P3 – Indigenous     Information received from the Bureau of        Not applicable.
Peoples’ Rights     Indian      Affairs   confirmed     Duke
                    University’s assertion that there were no
                    issues related to Indigenous Peoples’
                    rights on DF lands.
P4: Community       DF staff had positive things to say about      The Resource Manager carried out prior
Relations &         their employment. Evidence of their            notification to adjoining landowners of
Workers’ Rights     satisfaction could be seen in the long         forest activities. Stakeholder comments
                    tenure of many employees with DF.              upheld this contention for the most part.
                    Graduate students and Student Interns also
                    expressed a positive attitude toward theThere is good relationship between the
                    DF staff and felt they were being treated
                                                            loggers and timber brokers and the DF due
                    fairly.                                 in large measure to the Forest Technician.
                                                            Field    interviews    were      favorable.
                    One logger was interviewed and was very Unfortunately, none of these stakeholders
                    supportive of DF in terms of the work responded to the survey.
                    provided and on-the-job assistance
                    provided by the Forest Technician.

                    A timber broker was very positive in his
                    dealings with the Duke Forest staff.

P5: Benefits from   Based on previous recreational use studies The stated objectives of the Duke Forest
the Forest          there exists some level of satisfaction with
                                                               (i.e., teaching, research, and demonstration)
                    recreational opportunities afforded local  provide for a number of benefits to the
                    communities and others who frequent the    University, faculty, students, and local
                    forest.                                    communities. On the research side, the
                                                               benefits of forest activities are far reaching
                    There was general acceptance of the (e.g., Facts-1).
                    recreational opportunities afforded to the
                    public as 79% (n=81) of those who Duke Forest employs locals and purchases
                    responded to the SW stakeholder survey a number of goods and services from local
                    were satisfied with forest management’s communities.
                    approach to providing recreation.
P6:                 There were some problems expressed by        Due to the surrounding urban/suburban
Environmental       SW survey respondents. Of the 103            growth the Duke Forest provides a number
Impact              respondents to the DF SW survey the most     of environmental benefits to the region.
                    frequently    mentioned     environmental    The     stakeholder    survey   comments
                    problems were: road maintenance-14%,         generally support an appreciation of the
                    erosion    control-13%,     environmental    Duke Forest and its environmental benefits.
                    protection-12%, buffer zones –11%, and
                    wildlife habitat-11%. One issue that was The urban/suburban growth surrounding
                    not listed on the survey specifically, but
                                                             the forest Divisions and Tracts will present
                    verbally addressed by 7% of respondents  the greatest challenge to the forest staff.
                    was problems related to an overpopulationLimiting forest practices and issues such as
                    of deer.                                 deer problems will require considerable
                                                             effort and planning on the part of the staff.
                  There were some minor problems Stakeholder involvement can help with this
                  expressed by survey respondents. Of the process.
                  103 respondents to the DF survey the most
                  frequently       mentioned      monitoring
                  problems were: site maintenance-9%,
                  vandalism, theft, and arson-9%, and
                  poaching-5%.        There were a few
                  comments on pest monitoring and seven
                  related to deer overpopulation.
P7: Management Seventy-nine percent (n=81) of those who DF needs to review, revise, and update the
Plan              responded to the stakeholder survey were Management of the Duke Forest plan, and
                  satisfied with the DF management plan include a reasonable timeframe for future
                  quality.                                   periodic reviews that include stakeholder’s
                                                             input.
                  Seventeen percent of respondents were
                  unable to assess the management plan
                  quality, most likely because they have not
                  seen the plan.
P8: Monitoring & No comments received.                       Because certain aspects of monitoring and
Assessment                                                   assessing the forest resource were not
                                                             incorporated into forest operations or were
                                                             not clearly documented in the management
                                                             plan this information is largely out of the
                                                             grasp of the general public.
P9: Maintenance Few stakeholders (n=14) had ever heard DF should develop a method that further
of High           of HCVFs. Many expressed difficulty defines those areas they consider of
Conservation      with the definition as stated in the FSC primary and secondary significance to
Value Forest      Principles. However, 92% of the survey determine which if any would meet the
                  respondents felt HCVFs were important criteria for a HCVF.
                  and 85% felt forests should be included as
                  HCVFs.                                     HCVFs need to be incorporated into the
                                                             management plan and made a part of an
                                                             outreach program for stakeholders.
P10 - Plantations Only 6% of survey respondents felt The DF does a good job with their
                  plantation management should be plantation management however; they
                  improved. A total of 19% were unable to should include the social impacts of
                  answer this question.                      plantation establishment and management
                                                             into the Duke Forest operation planning
process and in revised management plans.

                                                                    Plantation management also should be
                                                                    made a part of an outreach program for
                                                                    stakeholders



  3. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
          3.1.      General Discussion of Findings

                                Table 6: Findings by FSC Principle

Principle/Subject                    Strengths                                     Weaknesses
      Area
P1: FSC              Duke Forest was found to be in                 There is no comprehensive list of
Commitment and       compliance with all applicable laws and        applicable laws and/or treaties that might
Legal                was also aware of relevant international       be useful both as reference and
Compliance           conventions and treaties. DF is a              educational tool.
                     responsible citizen in terms of legal and
                     social obligations in North Carolina.
                     There are no apparent conflicts between
                     the DF legal responsibilities and the FSC
                     P&C.
P2: Tenure &         Duke Forest, as part of a private              Duke Forest staff should initiate a process
Use Rights &         university does a commendable job,             or strategy for developing relationships
Responsibilities     securing      their    forest    properties,   with organized stakeholder groups.
                     interacting with their neighbors in regard
                     to ongoing forest operations and               Stakeholder lists need to be updated
                     recreational opportunities.                    periodically.
P3 – Indigenous      Results from a predictive model for items      Eleven percent of the SW survey
Peoples’ Rights      of historical, cultural, and archaeological    respondents felt they could improve in
                     relevance have enabled DF to manage the        areas related to historical and cultural
                     forest resource with consideration of          issues.
                     historical, cultural, and archaeological
                     sites.


P4: Community        Forest work is packaged and offered in Duke Forest needs to develop a policy for
Relations &          ways      that   create    quality   work informing faculty, staff, graduate students,
Workers’ Rights      opportunities for contractors.              and visitors of the potential hazards in the
                                                                 forest and the need for considering safety
                     Employment          conditions       (e.g., equipment upon entering the DF.
                     remuneration, benefits, safety equipment,
                     training, and workman’s compensation) Duke Forest needs to develop a proactive
                     are as good for non-local workers as they strategy for capturing stakeholder attitudes,
                     are for local workers doing the same job.   opinions, and perceptions of DF and its
                                                                 operations. This includes a continual
                     DF operations purchase a majority of their updating of stakeholder lists.
                     goods, equipment, and services from the
businesses and      individuals   in   local
                    communities.

                    Employee       compensation,    including
                    retirement benefits, and hiring practices
                    meet or exceed prevailing local norms for
                    work requiring equivalent education,
                    skills, and experience. This is almost
                    entirely attributable to the ownership of
                    DF by Duke University.

                    Individuals,      usually         adjoining
                    landowners, affected by management
                    operations are notified and apprised of
                    proposed forestry activities (e.g., logging,
                    burning, spraying, increased traffic) and
                    associated environmental and aesthetic
                    effects to solicit their comments or
                    concerns.

                    DF participates in a number of civic
                    activities and partnerships.
P5: Benefits from   The DF staff successfully implements the       DF should update the management plan to
the Forest          best and highest use of the forest by          reflect   periodic    forest    inventory
                    fulfilling the academic mission of Duke        information and other data collected to
                    University by proving teaching and             determine the annual allowable cut for the
                    research opportunities and demonstration       forest.
                    areas for faculty, students, and the public.
                                                                   DF should develop and implement a
                                                                   process for preparing written silvicultural
                                                                   prescriptions and incorporating them
                                                                   within their forest and stand history.

P6:                 Significant evaluation of the DF for sites     More work needs to be done by DF staff
Environmental       of ecological significance requiring full or   on documenting the evaluation of
Impact              partial protection has been accomplished       potential      environmental  impacts
                    through work with North Carolina Natural       operations at the site level.
                    Heritage Program and is ongoing
                    internally by permanent plots and site         There has been no efficient system
                    evaluation using the Shannon-Weaver            developed for evaluating research and
                    Index.                                         data collection work for utility within the
                                                                   forest management efforts.
                    Being a research forest, many projects
                    have focused on ecological processes, and While apparent on the ground that
                    are looking at the effects of various forest silviculture prescriptions are considered
                    management practices on those processes. carefully, there is no documentation of the
                                                                 ecological and silviculture rational for the
                    Roughly 50% of the forest has been prescription, nor are the prescriptions
                    dedicated     to    the    protection     of written.
                    representative        ecosystems        and
                    conservation zones. DF staff is working
                    with other public agencies in creation of a
green belt along the New Hope Creek
                    corridor and tributaries.

                    Management units are of such a scale and
                    intensity that environmental impacts are
                    minimized.
P7: Management      Management of the Duke Forest was            The management plan was written to be
Plan                written in December 1981 with addenda        long-lived document and is therefore
                    included in May 2001. The original 1981      broad in scope. Operational Guidelines
                    document was ahead of it’s time in terms     and Procedures are included, however,
                    of      identifying     and    addressing    there is a general weakness in describing
                    environmental and social issues that had     how the strategic goals outlined will be
                    not yet become preeminent in the forest      achieved.
                    industry, such as: cultural resource
                    identification and conservation, forest
                    visual quality management, recreational
                    use and urban interface issues, proactive
                    water quality management, and rare and
                    unique species / ecosystem identification
                    and management. The plan systematically
                    addresses the strategic management of the
                    total forest resource.
P8: Monitoring      A series of permanent plots have been in     There has not been a system developed to
& Assessment        place on DF since the 1930s and data has     analyze monitoring data being collected
                    been collected during that period related    for utility and incorporating that which is
                    for forest composition and changes over      useful into planning and operations.
                    time.
                                                                 DF needs to determine the frequency of
                    Many other research and monitoring           full inventory of the forest and ensure that
                    activities occur on DF that potentially      it is accomplished within the established
                    could supply a significant amount of         interval.
                    information into the forest management
                    system.                                      DF appears to have no evaluation of the
                                                                 cost, productivity, and efficiency of the
                                                                 management strategies implemented on
                                                                 the forest.

P9: Maintenance     Use of the North Carolina Natural            There is no formal monitoring strategy
of High             Heritage data and Shannon-Weaver Index       documented and in place to ensure the
Conservation        to identify sites of significance that       integrity and purpose for special areas are
Value Forest        require special operational considerations   being maintained.
                    ensures protection of values that could be
                    considered High Conservation Values.

                    Some areas have been identified for
                    special treatment that are not significant
                    from a local, regional, national, or
                    international       perspective,     simply
                    significant for the forest and students.
P10 - Plantations   Plantations are established on the Duke There is currently no decision support tool
                    Forest primarily for the purposes of other than the Goal Programming
                    student and public education and to Technique to assist staff in determining
satisfy research needs, such as the             the location of future plantations. A
                   FACTS-I carbon sequestration research.          science-based ecological rationale that
                   Strategically, a “Goal Programming              includes gap-phase or natural disturbance
                   Technique” has been developed to                pattern research would be beneficial.
                   identify stands that do not conflict with
                   any other predetermined land-use and
                   thus might be available for plantation
                   management. Operationally, site selection
                   is based upon achieving a balance
                   between site-suitability, landscape level
                   ecological considerations, aesthetics,
                   soils, and landform. Plantations are
                   generally small, averaging between 20
                   and 25 acres each. Plantation harvest, site
                   preparation, and regeneration techniques
                   are prescribed site specifically and share
                   the common goal of achieving the desired
                   stocking      while    minimizing      site
                   disturbance.


        3.2.     Certification Decision
Based on a thorough field review, analysis, and compilation of findings by this SmartWood
assessment team The Duke Forest was approved to receive joint FSC/SmartWood Forest
Management and Chain of Custody (FM/COC) Certification with the stipulated conditions. No
preconditions are warranted.

To maintain certification, the Duke Forest 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. The Duke Forest 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.     Summary of Conditions and Recommendations
Conditions are verifiable actions that will form part of the certification agreement that The Duke
Forest 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 one year of the issuance of a certificate, Duke Forest shall develop a policy
for informing faculty, staff, graduate students, and visitors of the potential hazards in the forest and
the need for using safety equipment upon entering the DF. Equipment itself should be made
available to visitors. Faculty researchers should be requested to incorporate safety equipment
requests in their funding applications. (Section 4.4.2)

Condition 2: Within one year of the issuance of a certificate, Duke Forest shall develop a
proactive strategy for capturing stakeholder attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of DF and its
operations. This includes a continual updating of stakeholder lists. (Section 4.4.4 and 4.4.5)
You can also read
Next part ... Cancel