• 2006 Internal Audit Reports

Sponsored Links

  •   
  • FileName: 2006InternalAuditReportsCompiled12-22-06_182615_7.pdf [read-online]
    • Abstract: Minor Non-Conformances: An isolated lapse in MDNR Sustainable Forest Certification Work ... The conformance report will include a report of management actions immediately taken to ...

Download the ebook

2006
Internal Audit
Reports
Compiled 12-22-06
Table of Contents
Escanaba (June 6-9) ....................................................................1-13
Shingleton (June 27-29) ..............................................................14-21
Grayling (June 27-29) .................................................................22-28
Newberry (July 18-20) ................................................................29-38
Crystal Falls (July 25-27) ...........................................................39-54
Roscommon (August 1-3) ...........................................................55-71
Traverse City (August 15-17) ....................................................72-83
Michigan DNR Forest Certification Internal Audit
Escanaba Internal Audit Report
Forest Management Unit (FMU): Escanaba Internal Audit Dates: June 6-8, 2006
Lead Auditor: Jeff Stampfly Internal Auditors: Kerry Fitzpatrick
Tom Haxby
Introduction: The internal audit of the Escanaba FMU was held the week of June 6-8, 2006; with auditors
actually beginning work on June 5th . The scope of the audit was State Forest Land (SFL) within the
Escanaba FMU. The audit criteria were the Feb. 7, 2006 version of the Work Instructions (WIs) and all
supporting DNR policy, procedures, rules, management guides, guidance documents, plans, and
handbooks that were relevant to the management of SFL. On Monday, June 5, a detailed list of audit sites
was selected and an audit route established based on a search of records and interviews with staff. The
route covered Northern Delta County on Tuesday and Menominee County on Wednesday. An opening
meeting with the participants was held on both Tuesday (Escanaba) and Wednesday (Stephenson) and
short meetings were held at the end of each field day to plan and debrief. The team met each evening to
review findings and plan the next day’s activities. A closing meeting was held on Thursday, June 8,
2006. The audit team gathered evidence to determine work instruction conformance through interviews,
document review and field observation.
All personnel participating in the audit were very cooperative during the audit. It was obvious to the audit
team that efforts were being made to implement the work instructions and they have made some
commendable efforts in many areas. The audit team would like to thank personnel for their active
participation.
Report Content: This report consists of an introductory page with Definitions, Opportunities For
Improvements (OFIs) and Corrective Action Requests (CARs). Questions can be directed to Jeff
Stampfly, Lead Auditor, Shingleton Field Office, PO Box 67, M-28, Shingleton, MI 49884 (906) 452-
6227 or to [email protected]
Definitions:
Major Non-Conformances: One or more of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Sustainable Forest Certification Work Instruction requirements has not been addressed or has not been
implemented to the extent that a systematic failure of the MDNR to meet a Sustainable Forest
Certification (Sustainable Forestry Initiative or Forest Stewardship Council) principle, objective,
performance measure or indicator occurs (Adapted from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard
2005-2009 Edition definitions.
Minor Non-Conformances: An isolated lapse in MDNR Sustainable Forest Certification Work Instruction
implementation which does not indicate a systematic failure to consistently meet a Sustainable Forest
Certification (SFI or FSC) principle, objective, performance measure or indicator.
Opportunities For Improvements: These are areas that do not warrant a CAR at this juncture, but effort
should be put into resolving the issue or developing a procedure to deal with the issue before it does
become a CAR.
Escanaba Internal Audit
1
Rev.# 1 May 25, 2006
MDNR Internal Audit Nonconformance Report
Unit Name and Site: NCR #:
Escanaba Forest Management Unit 33-2006-01
Lead Auditor: Team Member(s):
Jeff Stampfly Kerry Fitzpatrick, Tom Haxby
Date: Work Instruction or Standard and Clause#:
6/6-8/06 1.2 Management Review Process for Continual Improvement in the Management of Forest
Resources
Major Minor Other Documents (if applicable): Responsible Manager(s)
X _ Mgt Review final 4-11-06.doc Various
Internal Audit Work Instruction Summary
6/4/06
Latest Certification Timetable with
Deadlines and Leads
REQUIREMENT OF AUDITED STANDARD/ WORK INSTRUCTION:
The following is an excerpt from Work Instruction 1.2: Field Management Review:
c. Schedule the management review to follow annual forest certification audits.
i. Management Review will consist of a review of audit results by peninsula. Audits will evaluate field
operations and Department programs.
ii. Conduct an annual management review in the UP and the NLP. Meeting will be hosted and chaired by the field
coordinators of FMFM and WLD. Fisheries Division will participate in the meeting. Ecoteams will also be
represented at the annual management reviews.
iii. UP and LP field coordinators will prepare a joint draft report addressing conformance with the forest
certification standards and recommendations for improvement. The draft report will be submitted to DNR
division chiefs for review. Field Coordinators will incorporate division management team review comments
and submit a final report to the Statewide Council and the Forest Certification Implementation Team (FCIT).
iv. The conformance report will include a report of management actions immediately taken to address audit
results, will site non-conformance issues, and report other significant findings.
OBSERVED NONCONFORMITY:
There were numerous deadlines and processes that were to be implemented both as part of forest certification and as part of
the management review. Some examples include: The development of monitoring protocols for SCAs, HCVAs and ERAs
and an annual review of research needs and activities is to be conducted, a report written, posted to web, and distributed to
employees. Report was to be published by December 15, 2005. An action plan has been created to address forest
certification issues and management review decisions. Numerous certification action items that were developed in response
to the certification audit in December 2005 are overdue and this is inhibiting the Unit from meeting all of the elements of the
Work Instructions. For a complete list of the overdue action plan items, please contact the Forest Certification specialist.
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Describe the cause of the problem
Other levels of the organization did not accomplish assigned tasks within the established timeline.
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Proposed corrective action. To be completed by the Unit and relevant Divisions)
The observed non-conformity did not note any Unit level assignments. Corrective action needs to be completed at higher
levels of the organization before the elements of the work instruction can implemented at the Unit level.
Escanaba Internal Audit
2
Proposed Completion Date: FMFM Unit Manager and date: FMFM District Supervisor and date:
ML Paluda 10-6-2006
Corrective Action Plan Accepted
Lead Auditor Approval: Date:
Actual Completion Date: FMFM District Supervisor: Date:
Follow Up Comments:
Escanaba Internal Audit
3
Rev.# 1 May 25, 2006
MDNR Internal Audit Nonconformance Report
Unit Name and Site: NCR #:
Escanaba Forest Management Unit 33-2006-02
Lead Auditor: Team Member(s):
Jeff Stampfly Jeff Stampfly
Date: Work Instruction or Standard and Clause#:
6/6-8/06 Work Instruction 2.1 Reforestation
Work Instruction 3.1 Forest Operations
Major Minor Other Documents (if applicable): Responsible Manager(s)
X Eric Thompson
REQUIREMENT OF AUDITED STANDARD/ WORK INSTRUCTION:
• Stand examiners need to make comments in the narrative section of Operations Inventory (OI) reflecting an acceptable
species mix should the stand not regenerate to the management objective and this must be agreed to at compartment
review.
• All of the plantings must be summarized annually using the Planting Summary (R4046).
• Whenever a timber cutting report is generated, the contract administrator will update OI.
• Operations review: FMFM, Fisheries, and Wildlife Divisions will review and approve all intrusive operations
performed or permitted by any DNR division on State Forest lands at appropriate level(s), and these approvals will be
documented. Examples of intrusive operations include cutting or removal of vegetation (including negotiated sales),
dredging, and road construction. Where timely, operations will be reviewed in the annual compartment review process.
In the absence of an appropriate form or letter that provides an opportunity for FMFM, WLD, and FSHD to sign off, the
Forest Treatment Proposal may be used to document approvals. Completion of operations will also be documented in a
form available to the approving divisions (the Forest Treatment Completion Report may be used for this purpose).
OBSERVED NONCONFORMITY:
• There is some inconsistency in recording alternate mgmt objectives in the 2008 YOE. It must be noted that these have
not been through review or any error checking, so this may be corrected by the time of review. This was observed in OI
records in multiple 2008 YOE compartments.
• There does not appear to be a mechanism to incorporate Wildlife Division planting efforts into the Planting Summary
(R4046). District TMS does not receive completion reports from Wildlife Division plantings.
• There is inconsistency in the updating of OI from timber cutting reports or FTP completion reports. OI may be updated
from timber cutting reports as much as 6 months later and in some cases it appears OI is not updated until next cycle.
There was no evidence found of FTP completion reports or regeneration count information being added to OI
comments.
• While many forest operations are reviewed by the land managing and enforcement divisions, the documentation of the
review and follow up is lacking in some cases. Use permits did contain all of the appropriate review. However there
were several, examples of a lack of forest treatment proposals for intrusive operations (i.e. oak wilt cultural work) and a
lack of FTP completion reports.
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Describe the cause of the problem
Item 1, inconsistency in recording alternate MO 2008 YOE. Root cause of the problem comments regarding alternate
management objective are not captured at time of inventory, but are considered at pre-review.
Item 2, does not appear to be a mechanism to incorporate WD planting into Planting Summary. Root cause of the problem,
WD does not send completion reports to the TMS.
Item 3, inconsistency in the updating of OI. Root cause of the problem, lack of a tracking mechanism to determine if OI is
being updated following timber sales, FTP completions, etc.
Item 4, review of forest operations. Root cause of the problem is forest treatment proposals were not prepared for vibratory
plow work to control oak wilt.
Escanaba Internal Audit
4
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Proposed corrective action. To be completed by the Unit and relevant Divisions)
Item 1, Compartment pre-review will be held on July 31, 2006 where all treatments will be discussed with FD, WD, and
FMFM. Alternate management objectives will be determined and agreed to by all divisions. OIPC will be updated to reflect
these agreements following the pre-review. 2009 YOE compartments will include alternate management objective at time
of inventory.
Item 2, Wildlife Division will submit a planting completion report to the FMFM Management Unit. The planting completion
report will be forwarded to the TMS for inclusion in the planting summary.
Item 3, Unit Manger will create a tracking mechanism which will be checked periodically to determine if OI is being
updated. Unit foresters will have a performance objective stating: “Update OIPC on a regular basis (at a minimum bi-
annually) from timber sale completions. Work towards updating sales as soon as they are closed.”
Item 4, All intrusive operations will have the appropriate review and will be documented using the required form. FTP’s will
be prepared for vibratory plow oak wilt control. Completion reports will be prepared when the all FTP’s are completed.
Proposed Completion Date: FMFM Unit Manager and date: FMFM District Supervisor and date:
ML Paluda 10-6-2006
Corrective Action Plan Accepted
Lead Auditor Approval: Date:
Actual Completion Date: FMFM District Supervisor: Date:
Follow Up Comments:
Escanaba Internal Audit
5
Rev.# 1 May 25, 2006
MDNR Internal Audit Nonconformance Report
Unit Name and Site: NCR #:
Escanaba Forest Management Unit 33-2006-03
Lead Auditor: Team Member(s):
Jeff Stampfly Jeff Stampfly
Date: Work Instruction or Standard and Clause#:
6/6/06 2.2 Use of Pesticides and Other Chemicals on State Forest Lands
Major Minor Other Documents (if applicable): Responsible Manager(s)
X Bob Doepker
REQUIREMENT OF AUDITED STANDARD/ WORK INSTRUCTION:
Notification (Policy 592): The need for public notification is determined at the Forest Management Unit and reviewed by
the FMFM District Supervisor…
OBSERVED NONCONFORMITY:
The herbicide application was conducted by Wildlife Division. There was conformance with the Work Instruction with the
exception that the Forest Management Unit was not consulted on the need for public notification and the FMFM District
Supervisor did not review the Unit’s recommendation. Because this was a Wildlife Division project, an inquiry was made to
determine if the Wildlife Unit Manager had reviewed the need for public notification. The applicator indicated that no
supervisory review for notification was conducted.
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Describe the cause of the problem
Wild Division thought that posting signs was sufficient for public notification in this case.
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Proposed corrective action. To be completed by the Unit and relevant Divisions)
The need for public notification needs to be determined by the Forest Management Unit Manager with FMFM District
Supervisor review. Wildlife Division is now consulting with the Unit Manager to determine the need for public notification.
Proposed Completion Date: FMFM Unit Manager and date: FMFM District Supervisor and date:
June 30, 2006 ML Paluda 10-6-2006
Corrective Action Plan Accepted
Lead Auditor Approval: Date:
Actual Completion Date: FMFM District Supervisor: Date:
Follow Up Comments:
Escanaba Internal Audit
6
Rev.# 1 May 25, 2006
MDNR Internal Audit Nonconformance Report
Unit Name and Site: NCR #:
Escanaba Forest Management Unit 33-2006-04
Lead Auditor: Team Member(s):
Jeff Stampfly Jeff Stampfly
Date: Work Instruction or Standard and Clause#:
6/06-8/06 6.2 Integrating Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest
Major Minor Other Documents (if applicable): Lands
Responsible Manager(s)
X Eric Thompson
REQUIREMENT OF AUDITED STANDARD/ WORK INSTRUCTION:
Recreational opportunities on State Forest lands are integrated with forest management programs . Ongoing communications
with Forest Unit Managers and District Supervisors also assure recreational facility development, enhancements, or
reductions are integrated and made compatible with forest operations. Public and Tribal participation regarding recreational
facilities is encouraged during the Compartment Review process and other meetings held in the State.
OBSERVED NONCONFORMITY:
Multiple stands contained recreational trails and there was no indication from stand comments that the trails traversing the
stand or that the impacts to the trails from the proposed treatments were considered. It did not appear, from OI records, that
recreational impacts are being considered in silvicultural prescriptions.
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Describe the cause of the problem
Root cause of the problem is lack of documentation of the pre-review discussion of the treatments along the Days River
Pathway.
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Proposed corrective action. To be completed by the Unit and relevant Divisions)
Minutes will be taken at pre -review to ensure that discussions about recreational trails are incorporated into OIPC comments.
Proposed Completion Date: FMFM Unit Manager and date: FMFM District Supervisor and date:
July 31, 2006 ML Paluda 10-6-2006
Corrective Action Plan Accepted
Lead Auditor Approval: Date:
Actual Completion Date: FMFM District Supervisor: Date:
Follow Up Comments:
Escanaba Internal Audit
7
Rev.# 1 May 25, 2006
MDNR Internal Audit Nonconformance Report
Unit Name and Site: NCR #:
Escanaba Forest Management Unit 33-2006-05
Lead Auditor: Team Member(s):
Jeff Stampfly Jeff Stampfly, Kerry Fitzpatrick, Tom Haxby
Date: Work Instruction or Standard and Clause#:
6/6/06 3.2 Best Management Practices Non-Conformance Reporting Instructions
6.2 Integrating Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest Lands
7.2 Legal Compliance and Administration of Contracts
Major Minor Other Documents (if applicable): Responsible Manager(s)
X Various
REQUIREMENT OF AUDITED STANDARD/ WORK INSTRUCTION:
Multiple work instructions refer to ORV damage and enforcement of ORV laws and regulations. Management review from
2005 and other audits have also identified illegal ORV use and the subsequent resulting environmental damage as a
significant issue for MDNR. Reporting of damage under W.I. 3.2 and W.I. 7.2 is required as it is discovered. Known areas
of illegal ORV use are to be monitored for enforcement and damage.
OBSERVED NONCONFORMITY:
During the audit there were numerous examples of illegal ORV use and environmental damage/BMP violations visited.
Several areas were also observed along the route to planned stops. While action is being taken to stop this activity, it may
not be sufficient to lessen the overall threat to certification. There are some inconsistencies in documenting this damage in
OI records when it is discovered during the entry year cycle. The Unit is reporting BMP violations per Work Instruction 3.2;
however it’s obvious it will take some time to document all of the instances. Staff is also repairing BMP problem sites as
funding and time allows.
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Describe the cause of the problem
The publics lack of knowledge of the ORV laws and the lack of resources to enforce ORV laws. BMP reports have not been
added to all affected compartment maps. Comments have not been added to OIPC for all BMP reports.
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Proposed corrective action. To be completed by the Unit and relevant Divisions)
Continue to report problem areas to the Unit Manager and local LED officers. Continue to seek funding as needed to make
necessary repairs. Continue to post and monitor problem areas using Forest Officers where appropriate. BMP reports will
be added to compartment maps and OIPC as they are reported.
Proposed Completion Date: FMFM Unit Manager and date: FMFM District Supervisor and date:
ML Paluda 10-6-2006
Corrective Action Plan Accepted
Lead Auditor Approval: Date:
Actual Completion Date: FMFM District Supervisor: Date:
Follow Up Comments:
Escanaba Internal Audit
8
Rev.# 1 May 25, 2006
MDNR Internal Audit Nonconformance Report
Unit Name and Site: NCR #:
Escanaba Forest Management Unit 33-2006-06
Lead Auditor: Team Member(s):
Jeff Stampfly Jeff Stampfly
Date: Work Instruction or Standard and Clause#:
6-8-06 7.1 Timber Sale Preparation and Administration Procedures
Major Minor Other Documents (if applicable): Responsible Manager(s)
X Eric Thompson
REQUIREMENT OF AUDITED STANDARD/ WORK INSTRUCTION:
Ensure timber sale specifications match OI prescriptions.
OBSERVED NONCONFORMITY:
Lotta Aspen Sale (30-03), Compartment 13 Stand 7 had comments stating to leave some large maple along the road for
aesthetics. While there were other trees left along a lower area of the stand, no large maple trees by the road were retained.
This was only observed on this one sale and the two other sales inspected during the audit followed the prescriptions in OI.
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Describe the cause of the problem
Timber sale preparer and unit manager missed the comment in OIPC about leaving some large maples along the road.
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Proposed corrective action. To be completed by the Unit and relevant Divisions)
Timber sale preparers have been using the Timber Sale pre-sale checklist (R4031-6) for all sales since June 21, 2005. Unit
manager has been reviewing timber sale specifications to ensure sure that all comments in OIPC have been addressed.
Proposed Completion Date: FMFM Unit Manager and date: FMFM District Supervisor and date:
June 21, 2005 ML Paluda 10-6-2006
Corrective Action Plan Accepted
Lead Auditor Approval: Date:
Actual Completion Date: FMFM District Supervisor: Date:
Follow Up Comments:
Escanaba Internal Audit
9
Rev.# 1 May 25, 2006
MDNR Internal Audit Nonconformance Report
Unit Name and Site: NCR #:
Escanaba Forest Management Unit 33-2006-07
Lead Auditor: Team Member(s):
Jeff Stampfly Kerry Fitzpatrick, Tom Haxby
Date: Work Instruction or Standard and Clause#:
6/6/06 W.I. 1.1 Strategic Framework for Sustainable Management
W.I. 1.3 Eco-Regional Plan Development
Major Minor Other Documents (if applicable): Responsible Manager(s)
X Various
REQUIREMENT OF AUDITED STANDARD/ WORK INSTRUCTION:
To be knowledgeable of strategic guidance document and guidance contained therein and to ensure guidance is reflected in
operations. General knowledge of work instructions.
All DNR personnel within an Ecoregion participate in the planning process as a resource to the Eco-regional planning team.
OBSERVED NONCONFORMITY:
Key staff at the Unit and Eco-Regional level could not describe how State Forest Plan and Eco-regional Plan will provide
guidance for Unit Operations. Unit personnel are also unfamiliar with the Western Upper Peninsula (WUP) Eco-Regional
Planning Process during the plan development phase. Eco-regional staff feel the expectation that the WUP will be able to
meet the deadlines in the planning timeline are unrealistic given the current level of resources dedicated to planning. Unit
staff also are unclear as to how or if the Eco-Regional Plan will provide operational or tactical guidance. It was not apparent
to the audit team whether the Conservation Officers have had training on the Work Instructions.
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Describe the cause of the problem
The unit is not part of the planning process.
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Proposed corrective action. To be completed by the Unit and relevant Divisions)
Eco-regional planning team could send out updates. Eco-regional planning team could meet with management units
periodically to provide an update and solicit comments from unit staff.
Conservation Officers will be invited to the next Work Instruction training.
Proposed Completion Date: FMFM Unit Manager and date: FMFM District Supervisor and date:
ML Paluda 10-6-2006
Corrective Action Plan Accepted
Lead Auditor Approval: Date:
Escanaba Internal Audit
10
Rev.# 1 May 25, 2006
MDNR Internal Audit Nonconformance Report
Unit Name and Site: NCR #:
Escanaba Forest Management Unit 33-2006-08
Lead Auditor: Team Member(s):
Jeff Stampfly Tom Haxby
Date: Work Instruction or Standard and Clause#:
6/6/06 W.I. 1.7 State Forest Timber Harvest Trends
Major Minor Other Documents (if applicable): Responsible Manager(s)
X Various
REQUIREMENT OF AUDITED STANDARD/ WORK INSTRUCTION:
Knowledge of Forest Conditions and Harvest Trends Report. Knowledge is a requirement of the eco-regional staff and an
implied requirement of key unit level staff.
OBSERVED NONCONFORMITY:
Eco-regional staff was not aware of the Forest Conditions and Harvest Trends Report. Key unit staff were also unaware of
the report.
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Describe the cause of the problem
Work Instruction 1.7 does not specifically state nor does it imply that the Unit should be aware of any such report, therefore
Unit staff did not have any knowledge of the report. Eco-regional staff may have been unaware of the report due to the fact
that one was never distributed and cannot be found online.
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Proposed corrective action. To be completed by the Unit and relevant Divisions)
Forest Conditions and Harvest Trends Report should be distributed to all appropriate staff. Forest Conditions and Harvest
Trends Report should also be post online. (Both reports and sources of information are on line and have been for a long
time. New instructions to access the information has been recently distributed. (M. Paluda))
Work Instruction 1.7 should state specifically who should have knowledge of this report.
Proposed Completion Date: FMFM Unit Manager and date: FMFM District Supervisor and date:
ML Paluda 10-6-2006
Corrective Action Plan Accepted
Lead Auditor Approval: Date:
Actual Completion Date: FMFM District Supervisor: Date:
Follow Up Comments:
Escanaba Internal Audit
11
Rev.# 1 May 25, 2006
MDNR Internal Audit Nonconformance Report
Unit Name and Site: NCR #:
33-2006-9
Lead Auditor: Team Member(s):
Jeff Stampfly Tom Haxby
Date: Work Instruction or Standard and Clause#:
6/6/06 W.I. 3.3 Best Management Practices Road Closures
Major Minor Other Documents (if applicable): Responsible Manager(s)
X Eric Thompson
REQUIREMENT OF AUDITED STANDARD/ WORK INSTRUCTION:
Road closures appropriately implemented for safety or significant environmental concerns.
OBSERVED NONCONFORMITY:
Work instructions directing road closure reports to be sent to District Supervisor were not followed. It is the observation of
the audit team that there is confusion in the Unit regarding reporting to the WUP Eco-team for planning direction and the
EUP District Supervisor for operational direction.
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS: Describe the cause of the problem
Evidence could not be produced at time of audit.
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Proposed corrective action. To be completed by the Unit and relevant Divisions)
Documentation was produced after the audit indicating that the correct reporting to the District Supervisor and review by the
correct Eco-team had been followed. Documentation is attached.
Proposed Completion Date: FMFM Unit Manager and date: FMFM District Supervisor and date:
June 30, 2006 ML Paluda 10-6-2006
Corrective Action Plan Accepted
Lead Auditor Approval: Date:
Actual Completion Date: FMFM District Supervisor: Date:
Follow Up Comments:
Escanaba Internal Audit
12
Opportunities for Improvement
• There are opportunities for FMFM and WLD Divisions to improve their communications
regarding prescriptions and implementation of those prescriptio ns. While communication is
occurring, it appears at time to be later in the approval process when involved personnel exhibit
more ‘ownership’ of what has been accomplished to that point. This is causing more stress and
frustration in the system later in the process and it might be lessened with more communication
earlier in the process.
• Completion reports for intrusive operations not completed.
• Better documentation of decisions, changes, etc. in O.I.
• Better understanding of the post compartment review process for biodiversity areas; including the
addition of protection and management objectives in the OI database.
• More involvement and a better understanding of the eco-regional planning process and how the
plan will direct the Unit.
• An awareness tha t training records are ultimately the responsibility of each individual employee.
Civil Service training and trainings coordinated via division training officers are being entered
into staff records. Of staff questioned, most indicated that their records were not up to date.
These seemed to center on those trainings not coordinated through their training officers.
Records should be updated in a timely manner, preferably at the completion of the training or
soon there after.
• Staff are vaguely familiar with the 800 number to report problems with BMP issues (described in
WI 3.2). Staff who were questioned did not know about the SFI Inconsistent Practices phone
numbers (described in WI 6.3). The two services are executed through the same number (1-800-
474-1718).
• Fisheries division pesticides are procured on a long timeline and thus are stored for longer than
usual periods. Extra care should be taken to store these chemicals properly, particularly having
adequate space/volume to accommodate potential leakages.
Escanaba Internal Audit
13
Michigan DNR Forest Certification Internal Audit
Shingleton Internal Audit Report
Forest Management Unit (FMU): Shingleton Internal Audit Dates: June 26-29, 2006
Lead Auditor: Mike Donovan Internal Auditors: Pat Hallfrisch
Tom Haxby
Kevin LaBumbard
Introduction: The internal audit of the Shingleton FMU was held the week of June 26-29, 2006. The
scope of the audit was operations that occur on State Forest Land within the Shingleton Management
Unit.. The audit criteria were the Feb. 7, 2006 version of the Work Instructions (WIs) and all supporting
DNR policy, procedures, rules, management guides, guidance documents, plans, and handbooks that are
relevant to the management of State Forest Land. On the afternoon of Monday, June 26, field audit routes
were established for Tuesday and Wednesday based on a detailed list of audit sites that were identified in
pre-audit planning. The auditors worked in teams of two each day. On Tuesday, one team of auditors
visited sites northeast of Shingleton. The other team visited sites in the Seney Area. On Wednesday, a
team of auditors visited sites on the Garden Peninsula and the other team visited sites north of
Manistique. A short meeting was held Tuesday morning at the Shingleton Office and Wednesday
morning at the Wyman Nursery in Manistique. A closing meeting was held on Thursday, June 29, 2006.
The audit team gathered evidence to determine work instruction conformance through interviews,
document review and field observation.
All personnel participating in the audit were very cooperative during the audit. It was obvious to the audit
team that efforts were being made to implement the work instructions and they have made some
commendable efforts in many areas. The audit team would like to thank personnel for their active
participation.
Report Content: This report consists of an introductory page with Definitions and Corrective Action
Requests (CARs). Questions can be directed to Mike Donovan, Lead Auditor, Wildlife Division,
Lansing, MI (517) 373-7027 or to [email protected]
Definitions:
Major Non-Conformances: One or more of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Sustainable Forest Certification Work Instruction requirements has not been addressed or has not been
implemented to the extent that a systematic failure of the MDNR to meet a Sustainable Forest
Certification (Sustainable Forestry Initiative or Forest Stewardship Council) principle, objective,
performance measure or indicator occurs (Adapted from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard
2005-2009 Edition of definitions).
Minor Non-Conformances: An isolated lapse in MDNR Sustainable Forest Certification Wor


Use: 1.1497