�Emethods for assessing environmental impacts (FSC P&C, 6.1) and monitoring resource conditions and plan attainment. (FSC P&C, 8.1, 8.2, 8.4)

�EWritten management plans are comprehensive, responsive to site peculiarities, consider socio-economic factors, are coherently organized and provide a sound tool for guiding the management of the plantation forest operation. Management is enabled by the focused acquisition and use of resource information. (FSC P&C, 4.4, 10.1)

�EWhere a demonstrable public need exists, the company prepares a publicly available summary of the management plan that provides an overview of management objectives and prescriptions and a forest resource description, without compromising valid issues of confidentiality. (FSC P&C, 7.4, 8.5)

�EThe plantation forest is designed and maintained as a fully regulated management unit, overtime.

�EThe purpose of the plantation forest is compatible with the capabilities of the selected site.

�EAssessment of environmental impacts is fundamental to the management program, thereby resulting in the minimization of adverse impacts.

�EPlantation design and/or implementation is inadequate to supply the raw material requirements of the mill to which it is tied.

�EHarvest levels systematically exceed periodic growth thereby leading to resource depletion, over time. (FSC P&C, 5.6)

�EHarvesting of stands is random and/or opportunistic, thereby abandoning planned harvest patterns. Stands are cut at too young of an age to capture long term productive capacity. Economic requirements exclusively dictate cutting decisions.

�EResource stabilization and recovery plans are not developed after catastrophic events. Subsequent timber salvaging unnecessarily adds to the negative environmental effects of the initial event.

�EThe FMU lacks an effective and operational monitoring program.

�EManagement plans fail to consider site peculiarities or socio-economic factors.

�EEfforts at assessing potential environmental impacts of planned activities are either absent or fundamentally deficient. The operation fails to provide adequate protection for threatened and endangered species. (FSC P&C, 6.2)

�ESite preparation practices

�ENursery practices and seed procurement

�EPlanting practices

�ESilvicultural practices

�EEfficiency and efficacy of mechanized activities and chemical application

�EForest protection and response to exogenous factors such as blowdown, fire, and pathogens (FSC P&C, 10.6)

�EGuidelines for erosion control, road construction and maintenance, and for minimizing damage of harvesting operations. (FSC P&C, 6.5)

�EOver time, the operation achieves the best mean annual increment (MAI) possible per acre for the target species.

�EGuidelines are effective and fully followed for minimizing the adverse impacts of management activities.

�EThe plantation is designed and operated so as to minimize exposure to stand damaging events such as fire and pathogens; mortality is kept to a minimum.

�ESeedling survival is less than 85%, due to any of the following factors:

�EHarvesting system adaptability to site conditions

�EActual (i.e., implemented) harvesting systems as compared to designed systems

�ERoad system construction and maintenance, including equipment

�ETechnical, contractual and operational controls over third-party harvesting activities

�EContinuity of systems development in response to biological, technical and cost factors

�EIntermediate harvests and the final removal of target products from the plantation occur as planned, with little or no damage to the site and with full capture of the production that the plantation has yielded.

�ERoads provide full and unrestricted access to the forest but are not excessive in density or design.

�EWithin the context of the products being produced, maximum market value is realized. (FSC P&C, 5.2)

�EWhere appropriate, efforts are successfully made to market diverse products. (FSC P&C, 5.4).

�ESalvage harvesting of damaged areas is guided by written resource stabilization and recovery plans. Salvaging does not cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

�EShifts in harvesting equipment are rapid and outpace knowledge and ability of operators to minimize site damage.

�ERoads are not laid out as planned and not maintained; the road system is a hindrance to efficient management of the plantation forest.

�EInadequate oversight of harvesting leads to substantial damage to coppice regeneration (where applicable) and/or high levels of equipment-related stand or soil damage.

�EContractors perform at substantially lower standards than company crews.

�EHarvesting operations noticeably reduce the productivity of future crops (e.g., from residual stand damage or compaction).

�EManagers systematically fail to receive full market value for the plantation products. (FSC P&C, 5.2).

�ESalvage logging after catastrophic events exacerbates, substantially, the adverse effects of the events themselves.

�EContinuous forest inventory and yield control

�ECost simulations and management alternatives

�ESite maintenance control and monitoring systems (e.g., soil productivity, species adaptability) (FSC P&C, 10.5)

�EResearch and development on silvicultural practices and species trials (FSC P&C, 10.5)

�EResearch and development on chemical effectiveness and alternatives to chemicals (FSC P&C, 10.6)

�EChemical use is kept to a minimum; when used, it is applied efficiently and effectively

�EThe forest owner endeavors to engage in active research and development; the results of this effort are efficiently transferred into the management of the plantation forest

�EManagement costs are continuously monitored and analyzed so as to provide optimum net returns within the constraints of the resource base

�EForest inventory information enables managers to intelligently manage the resource base.

�EForest inventory, or the lack thereof, is not providing adequate information for management

�EManagement system fails to provide and institute adequate yield controls

�ECosts are poorly analyzed, leading to noticeable inefficiencies

�EThere is no systematic soil sampling to monitor soil productivity, over time

�ENo auditing/monitoring of soil erosion

�EThe forest managers don’t keep abreast of and utilize available R&D information developed by other entities

�EThere is no effort to assess the adaptability of a species prior to its broad-scale use.

�EOverall adequacy of the organization and management structure

�EChronological structure of planned plantation management activities

�EEducation and training by type (formal on-the-job training) and level (managerial and operational) of the company staff and contractors

�EAdministrative functions such as reporting, record keeping and cost controls

�EManagement efficiency relating to physical facilities and materials needed

�EUtilization and management of third-party and contract labor activities, and;

�EAdequacy of the log marking system for assuring clear and accurate tracking of all logs coming from fee lands as opposed to non-fee lands (FSC P&C 8.3).

�EThe company can be characterized as an efficient and effective operation that translates to state of the art management of the resource base.

�EManagement activities are intelligently designed and chronologically sequenced so as to provide for maximum efficacy.

�EThird-party and contract activities do not involve a sacrifice in effectiveness and efficiency.

�EEmployee education and training keeps the workforce on the cutting edge of plantation forest management technology.

�EManagement is unable to cope with the demands of laying out and implementing the chronological series of interrelated activities necessary to establish and administer a productive plantation forest operation.

�EContractors are poorly administered, resulting in sub-par performance.

�EThe company/forest owner fails to keep even marginally adequate records needed for procurement decisions, taxes, cost containment, etc.

�EThe company/forest owner does not have a log marking system that accurately tracks and distinguishes fee logs from logs obtained from other sources. The company/forest owenr cannot assure that only logs coming from lands evaluated by SCS would bear a certification stamp, were the operation to be certified.

�ECompatibility of design and location within regional landscape patterns (FSC P&C, 10.2, 10.4)

�EBenefits and adverse impacts caused by the plantation forest (FSC P&C, 10.2)

�EEnvironmental policies and programs for biodiversity and wildlife management (FSC P&C, 5.5)

�EThe relative balance of carbon sequestration of the plantation forest

�EUse of exotic species and genetically engineered organisms(FSC P&C, 6.8, 6.9, 10.3)

�EKey design elements such as species selection and silvicultural treatments provide maximum possible compatibility with surrounding regional landscape patterns. Diversity provided by the plantation within the regional landscape constitutes a substantially positive contribution to overall ecological health of the region.

�EEcological benefits, including reduced pressure on natural forests, substantially outweigh any adverse impacts associated with the plantation.

�EComprehensive, written policies and programs for assuring maximum practicable biodiversity within the context of the plantation design are developed and faithfully executed. Policies and programs for providing enhanced wildlife habitat attributes within the plantation are designed and implemented.

�EUse of exotic species is avoided unless their productivity substantially outweighs that of indigenous species. If exotics are used, such use is carefully controlled and actively monitored such that adverse ecological impacts are avoided.

�EThe plantation is located in an inappropriate site with respect to regional landscape and ecological integrity. No effort is made to incorporate landscape level diversity into the plantation design and siting.

�EAdverse impacts of the plantation substantially outweigh any positive ecological attributes.

�ENo written policies and programs exist for biodiversity and wildlife, or they are not given serious attention in the field.

�EThe use of exotic species threatens the ecological integrity of the natural ecosystems surrounding the plantation forest.

�EPlantation stand level diversity, including but not limited to species diversity. (FSC P&C, 10.4)

�EManagement practices designed to maintain or improve soil fertility and structure.

�EManagement practices for mitigating plantation forest site impacts. (FSC P&C, 10.2, 10.3, 6.9)

�EResearch and development pertaining to environmental and ecological site factors.

�EMagnitude of adverse site impacts relative to regional norms for plantations.

�EMonitoring and controls for long-term ecological sustainability. (FSC P&C, 10.5)

�EManagement practices fully capture all opportunities for maintaining and/or enhancing soil productivity. Erosion is kept to lowest practicable levels during harvesting and log hauling operations.

�EThe trees species selected for planting provide highest possible compatibility with site conditions and management objectives. The use of exotic species is justified by their clearly superior performance including the absence of risk to the natural ecosystems.

�EThe management program includes fully integrated research and development, and monitoring, activities that provide managers with up-to-date knowledge of pertinent site factors and the impacts of the plantation forest on these site factors.

�EThe plantation forest operation compares favorably with all other plantations within the region in terms of the magnitude of adverse site impacts.

�EThe plantation design provides for maximum diversity across stands or management units, including species diversity.

�EThe plantation is leading to substantial degradation in soil productivity, either through poor design or improper management.

�EPlantation forest managers essentially have no working knowledge or pertinent environmental and ecological site factors and there is no system in place for providing information on the degree of impact to these site factors.

�EDirect impacts of the plantation forest are not substantially below the industry norm for the region.

�EThe species selected for planting are fundamentally incompatible with site conditions and/or management objectives. Exotic species are used where natural species would be effective in meeting management objectives and environmental safeguards.

�ENo effort is made to incorporate diversity into plantation structure and layout; there is relatively little plant species diversity and/or structural diversity such as indicated by the number of canopy layers.

�EAdherence to legal requirements for watercourse protection and erosion control.

�EEffectiveness of design, installation and maintenance of stream crossing structures. Extent to which roadway design and maintenance minimizes erosion.

�EEffectiveness in the design, restoration and maintenance of watercourse and roadway buffer zones.

�EMonitoring, management and control of plantation forest soil erosion. (FSC P&C, 10.7)

�EThe plantation forest operation is a regional/national leader in protecting watercourse zones and minimizing soil erosion into those zones.

�EWatercourse buffer zones represent a substantial component, spatially, of the overall operation and are maintained or restored to natural forest cover of regional ecological value. Buffers are of sufficient dimensions to fully protect watercourses and to provide for the integrity of the forest or other vegetative types that occur within the buffers. Safeguards are in place for assuring the long-term protection of buffer areas from adverse impacts of plantation management.

�EThe plantation management program includes fully effective monitoring procedures that provide ready information on soil erosion throughout the operation. Forest managers acts upon such information expeditiously.

�EThe operation does not comply with legal requirements on watercourse protection and soil erosion.

�EErosion leads to substantial deposition of soil and organic debris into watercourses, thereby degrading water quality and aquatic habitats.

�EThere is no effective program for monitoring soil erosion and/or monitoring findings do not lead to remedial management practices.

�EAdherence to legal requirements and limits on chemical usage (FSC P&C, 6.6)

�ESchedule of chemical use and justification for their particular use

�EEffectiveness of use (e.g., locational accuracy of application, appropriateness of timing, efficacy of desired results)

�EExtent to which silvicultural practices and research minimize the need for chemical use; substitution of less toxic chemicals; application of biological substitutes (FSC P&C, 10.6)

�EEach chemical used is specifically justified for use based upon a comparative analysis of alternative chemicals and non-chemical means for achieving the desired end result. The schedule of chemical application is the result of careful planning that results in minimum frequency and quantity of application to achieve the desired end result.

�EThere are no areas of non-compliance with legal requirements and the operation's

use of chemicals represents a position of environmental leadership within the

plantation forest industry of the region.

�EOperations managers are consistently striving to minimize chemical use by

investigating and adopting management practices that reduce chemical dependency. For instance, site preparation activities are timed so as to require only one application of chemicals to support seedling establishment.

�EChemicals are applied indiscriminately and inefficiently.

�EThere is no discernible effort to reduce chemical use, over time.

�EThere are substantial areas of non-compliance with legal requirements.

�EAdherence to legal requirements for biological reserve systems and protected areas.

�ETotal area of biological reserve areas as compared to the legal requirements and the

scale of the operation.

�EThe size and layout of the biological reserve areas in relationship to the general

landscape patterns. The utility of reserve areas as wildlife corridors.

�ECompany policies and controls, beyond legal requirements, for the establishment

and maintenance of biological reserve areas.

�EManagement practices within the reserve areas to enhance biological diversity and to

preserve the areas in their most natural state.

�EReserve areas constitute 20% or more of the total area of the plantation forest

operation and substantially exceed legal requirements.

�EReserve areas are of sufficient scale and landscape pattern so as to provide

maximum practicable habitat value within the overall context of a plantation

forest operation.

�EThe company has well developed and written policies that effectively guide the

implementation and maintenance of the biological reserve program.

�EManagement practices are designed and implemented that provide for maximum

practicable biological diversity in the reserve areas; generally, reserve areas are

kept in their natural state.

�ELess than 10% of the overall plantation operation is dedicated to biological reserve

areas; legal requirements are not met.

�EReserve areas are generally small and isolated, thereby having low habitat and

ecological value.

�EReserve areas tend to be degraded areas and other areas of lowest opportunity cost

to plantation production and are generally ignored after dedication.

1) The financial viability of the operation. Be it a natural forest or plantation forest operation, or a hybrid of both types of forests, the long-term sustainability and continuity of the operation is fundamentally dependent on its financial viability. The duty of the evaluation team is to assess, to the extent allowed by available information, the financial stability of the organization and the likelihood that financial exigencies may influence the stability of the forest plantation management regime that is in place. To be sustainable, forest plantation management regimes must be financially viable.

2) The socio-economic impact and benefit profile of the operation. Just as with natural forests management operations, the focus in the evaluation of plantation forest operations is the extent to which the operation performs as a "good neighbor" to those communities and stakeholder groups who are either directly impacted or who have a valid stake in the management activities. The key question is the balance and distribution of human benefits versus adverse impacts associated with the subject operation and the extent to which they will be sustained into the future. In the case of plantations located in less developed countries, in particular, the socio-economic dimension may often include the traditional and legal rights of indigenous peoples living in or near the plantation site.

�EOwnership structure and vertical integration, if any, where resource requirements by the processing facility (e.g., pulp/paper mill) may dictate land management decisions and priorities for the plantation forest.

�ESecurity and stability of the ownership structure and the owner’s philosophy with respect to the role of financial considerations in setting management priorities and land management actions, as revealed through historic records or other evidence.

�ECash flow demands of the company/family relating to debt service or capital demands of owners/stockholders.

�EThe relative financial strength of plantation forestry on the site as compared to other possible land uses of the site.

�EClear, legal evidence of ownership or concession rights exists for the operation.

�EFinancial requirements placed upon the management of the land are compatible with the short and long term capability of the plantation forest operation to yield marketable products within the constraints of maintaining ecological productivity.

�EPlantation forest management decisions are ultimately driven by resource conditions and requirements and full recognition of environmental constraints rather than exogenous financial demands. The company/family has developed and fully adheres to policies that recognize the precedence of resource stewardship over unfettered financial returns.

�ELandowner return on investment is sufficient to support long term commitment to plantation forest stewardship rather than conversion to non-sustainable practices or conversion to other land uses.

�EThe operation cannot establish its legal right to use the land base at issue.

�EFinancial considerations, such as servicing debt or meeting cash flow requirements, dominate plantation forest management decisions.

�EShort-term financial exigencies result in land management decisions that compromise the long-term health and productivity of the plantation forest and /or the surrounding regional ecosystems.

�EManagement decisions lead to or are a manifestation of short duration ownership patterns; the ownership is or will be actively for sale or is a likely candidate for unsolicited acquisition due to its financial weakness.

�Ethe site selection for the plantation and potential impacts to human habitation patterns

�Ethe sale of wood products

�Eaccess to the subject property by members of local and regional communities

�Etax payments

�Eemployment from within local and regional workforce

�Eefforts to support local businesses when making decisions about the sale of wood products or in purchasing decisions (FSC P&C, 5.2).

�Ecorporate contributions and other forms of support to community and civic programs

�Einvolvement of the ownership's employees in community affairs

�Erecognition of community rights and expectations with respect to the plantation site

Field and management indicators around which data and other supporting data are gathered include:

�EPolicies and track record in hiring from the local and regional workforce (FSC P&C, 4.1)

�EPolicies and track record in support and adherence to the rights and economic interests, traditional and legal, of local residents or indigenous peoples, where applicable (FSC P&C, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)

�EMechanisms for resolving disputes over tenure claims and use rights (FSC P&C, 2.3, 4.5)

�ERelative socio-economic benefits to the region resulting from the plantation forest operation as compared to alternative land uses of the site.

�ECorporate support to the community in terms of charitable contributions, commitment and encouragement of employee participation, materials purchases, etc.

�EReputation and image of the operation and its employees among local and regional residents

�EThe extent to which indigenous people are compensated for the application of their traditional knowledge regarding the use of tree species or management systems in the plantation forest operation (FSC P&C, 3.4), and;

�Ecompany efforts to keep stakeholders informed on the status of the forest management program and forest resource conditions, through distribution of a public summary of the management plan and annual releases of public summaries of forest monitoring activities (FSC P&C 7.1, 7.4, 8.2, 8.5).

�EThe plantation forest operation (including reserve areas), as a source of consumptive and non-consumptive resources and a source of employment opportunity, contributes rather than detracts from the quality of life in affected communities, over the long run.

�EWhere applicable, the rights and values of indigenous peoples are fully recognized and respected.

�EThe company/family forest operation and its employees are full and active contributors to the local and regional communities surrounding the plantation forest.

�EThrough its actions and public statements, the company/family forest operation is an advocate of socially-responsible plantation forestry.

�EWhere applicable, the company affirmatively seeks to identify any practices that rely upon the application of indigenous knowledge and provides commensurate compensation to appropriate parties.

�EThe operation, through its plantation siting decisions, land management policies, marketing strategies, hiring practices, and community programs (or lack thereof) exhibits a fundamental insensitivity or indifference to the long term interest of affected communities and regional economies.

�EThe company/family forest operation fails to recognize indigenous and local peoples' customary and/or legal rights.

�EThrough its actions, the company/family forest operation contributes to deleterious social impacts and, generally, fails to be a good neighbor.

�EThe company/family forest operation makes no effort to compensate indigenous people for their knowledge and techniques that are being utilized in the plantation forest operation.

�EForest managers fail to provide public summaries of the management plan and periodic monitoring activities, leaving key stakeholders systematically incapable of developing informed opinions as to the management program.

�EInvestment in professional personnel for managerial and supervisory functions within the organization and the expressions of management priorities of managers/supervisors (e.g., policies and strategies for investment in silviculture, research, and environmental) protection.

�EAverage annual expenditures on nursery production, R&D, silvicultural prescriptions relative to regional industry norms

�EPolicies and average annual expenditures on timely investment in environmental strategies and training (FSC P&C, 5.1)

�EExpenditures and commitment to ongoing employee training and education, including matters related to worker safety (FSC P&C, 6.6) and management plan implementation. (FSC P&C, 7.3)

�ETiming and magnitude of investments in plantation support activities (e.g., nurseries, silvics, resource protection) are sufficient to fully sustain the plantation management program and maximum productivity levels.

�EInvestments in machinery (e.g., harvesting equipment) and capital improvements such as roads are sufficient to keep the operation at the leading edge of plantation forestry within the regional context.

�EThe workforce--particularly managerial and professional staff--fully maintains currency with developing plantation management practices and techniques and with the actions necessary to fully implement the management plan.

�EThe company commits sufficient funds to acquire and maintain land resource information systems that clearly facilitate improved and more informed management.

�EThe productivity of the plantation and the health of the reserve area are being adversely impacted by systematic dis-investment; inadequate R&D, insufficient nursery facilities and output, out-of-date equipment, and an ill-equipped and poorly trained workforce.

�EEmployee wages and benefits as compared to regional industrial norms and labor legislation

�EEmployee work attitudes, general morale, and relative tenure of workforce on a sectoral and regional basis

�EOpportunities for employee participation in management decisions and company policy formation

�EThird-party and contractor relations and magnitude of contractor compensation rates relative to regional norms and minimum income/quality of life standards

�EObservance of legal safety standards and company policies on safety as compared to actual safety records

�EThe forest operation’s employee compensation package is a regional leader in the industry.

�EThe company/family forest operation is as concerned with the welfare of contractors operating on their lands as it is concerned with employee's welfare. The decision to contract for field work in not made strictly as a cost reduction measure that is borne by the contract laborer. That is, shifts to contract labor do not result in a reduction in the economic welfare of the affected workforce.

�EEmployees and contractors can derive a competitive, living wage from association with the company.

�EThrough policies and practices, the company is an industry leader in long-term commitment to its employees and contractors.

�EThe forest managers are not autocratic; rather, they seek feedback from employees and contractors in order to keep abreast of emerging information and technology.

�EThe company/family forest operation doesn't pay the social obligation of employees (e.g., workmen's composition, hospitalization).

�EWhere applicable, contractor or employee work camps are not maintained so as to provide minimum appropriate levels of sanitation and quality of life.

�EThere is a systematic failure to assure that contractor and employee activities meet legal requirements.

�EThe company/family forest operation violates established legal rights for employee organizing and bargaining. (FSC P&C, 4.3)