Principle - Yield and quality of forest goods are sustainable.

Criterion- Forest management provides for sustainability of goods and services.

Indicator - Objectives are clearly stated in terms of the major functional areas of the forest, with respect to their spatial distribution.

Box B: Definition:

CIFOR Brief Definition:

"Objectives of management" is an indicator concerned with the essential specific and technical aspects which are relevant to the major functions of the forest.

Objectives are clearly stated in term of the major functions of the forest

Purpose:

Optimizing functions of the forests and minimizing damage

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

Landowner objectives will vary and therefore, details will be different, but the indicator applies equally to all landowners.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR: 3.1 3.2.2

Notes:

Policy objectives are applicable to smaller spatial scales, i.e. Ownerships.

In the Boise FMU, collaborative planning occurs for water quality and protection of other resource values. The State Forest Practices Act, which provides rules and best management practices to protect water quality, soils, wildlife and fish habitat, and assures reforestation, applies to all forest owners.

Notes:

Structure, function, and composition are ecological parameters.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Achieving goals of sustainability at ecosystem levels will require participation and coordinated contribution from all landowners. It is not likely that an individual landowner will be able to, nor be expected to, provide all components of sustainability on any individual piece of ground.

A theoretical visualization of the process of attaining a desired future condition is illustrated in the following figure adapted from the Boise National Forest Plan:

Figure IV-1.BNF Plan: Path to Desired Future Condition. During the public involvement process, the steering committee developed this figure to help visualize the differences between goals, objectives and standards in achieving the desired future conditions.

Forest management will have different manifestation in response to site conditions, social studies

and management objectives. Thus management objectives are key to determining whether a

FMU is following a sustainable trend or not.

Management objectives include production (wood or non-wood forest product), conservation, recreation/tourism, and multiple use.

1. Production forestry.

In production forestry, the objectives can be for wood or a wide variety for non-wood forest product. For wood production, the objective must be sustained-yield forest management, or not allowing the rate of harvest removal to exceed that of re-growth. The harvest of non-wood forest product can be important for local communities as a source of raw material and cash income.

1. Forestry for conservation and recreation/tourism.

Management of conservation may include any or all of the following functions, such as watershed protection (control of runoff, soil erosion, etc), reclamation (the improvement of degraded lands and assisted regeneration), protection of the way of life of indigenous peoples, conservation of flora, wildlife conservation, and contribution to the global carbon dioxide cycle.

Forestry for recreation/tourism is combined with conservation by the creation of a national park.

1. Multiple-use forestry management

This is the management of forests with the intention of meeting two or more major objectives simultaneously. In most natural forests, it is possible to combine carefully controlled harvesting with conservation values, while at the same time permitting removal of non-wood forest product.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

The management of the forests for each of the many products, services, and benefits presents a complex problem. Balancing their functions is at the core of sustainability.

Clearly stated management objectives are directly related to the sustainability of multiple-resource values.

Clear objectives for each resource value are essential components to successful implementation.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

The challenge for any landowner is how to determine if they are or are not practicing sustainable forestry and making contributions to overall ecosystem stability. We propose that this can be accomplished by comparing management objectives and resource guidelines with a list of the major sustainability functions of the forest environment. We have a proposed checklist, shown below, that could be used for this assessment. By going through the list and checking off those items that have been accomplished, or where activities are making contributions towards sustainability, any stakeholder can assess how they are doing in meeting the goals of sustainability.

Box L: Data Required:

In order to determine if objectives are clearly stated with regards to the major sustainability functions of the forest, we need to have a listing of the objectives and a listing of the major sustainability functions of the forest.

CIFOR Source recommends that we have available the forest plan document or documented management objectives.

Data needed to compile the indicator:

• Management plan/planning document
• Land use classification
• Plans EIA if available
• Stakeholder consultation

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest Management Philosophy

The Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Boise National Forest contains goals, objectives, and standards for land management activities. These are displayed at the Forest Level (Chapter IV, pp. 1-86) and more site specific goals, objectives, and standards are linked to the Management Area prescriptions (Chapter IV, pp. 97-492). Forest-wide direction consists of Forest goals, objectives and standards to achieve the desired future condition for each resource and use on the Forest. The Desired Future Condition (DFC) is a description of the cumulative results of implementing the goals expressed in the Forest Plan. The DFC’s provide the context for determining sustainable management and are described in detail in the LRMP (Summarized in Chapter IV, pp. 493-501).

DFC, Goals, Objectives, and standards were developed for the following functions (resource areas): Soil, Water, and Air; Riparian; Fisheries; Wildlife; Range Ecosystem Management; Noxious Weeds; Recreation; Recreation Travel; Cultural Resources; Wilderness; River Management; Research Natural Areas; Timber; Forest Health; Fire and Fuels; Facilities; Minerals; and Lands.

Following are examples for a few selected functions.

Developed Recreation -

• Desired Future Condition (DFC) - Developed Recreation facilities meet projected demands and are managed to maintain a Forest-wide developed site capacity of 16,000 people at one time (PAOT). Facilities are clean, well maintained, and operated at a standard level of service identified in an annual operations and maintenance plan.
• Goal - Develop and implement vegetation management plans for developed sites.
• Objective - Develop vegetation management plans for 12 developed sites per year until all sites have plans.
• Standard - Maintain capital investments in fee sites at Maintenance Level 2, as a minimum.

Commitment

Boise Cascade will manage its forests to provide the best-sustained harvest of forest products with acceptable economic returns and to maintain or enhance wildlife, watershed, soil, and recreational values.

Boise Cascade is committed to multiple-use management of its forests as the means to provide benefits for all uses. Boise Cascade believes healthy, free-to-grow trees are the best protection for the forest and all its users. Boise Cascade is therefore committed to the active protection of its forests from the destructive effects of wildfire, insects, and disease.

Forest Management Responsibilities

Wildlife: Boise Cascade accepts the responsibility to understand the impacts of its forestry activities on wildlife and will continue to maintain or improve wildlife habitat as part of ongoing management objectives. Boise Cascade will ensure that our forest management is consistent with the law as well as the intent of the various rules and regulations for wildlife.

Recreation: Boise Cascade will strive to provide the public with broad use of its lands for recreation. Public safety and protection of forest resources may require controlled access to particular lands.

Sustained Yield: Boise Cascade believes that the ownership of forestland carries a special obligation to provide a long-term sustainable yield of renewable forest products.

Special Areas: Boise Cascade will manage areas with unique or special characteristics, including historical and ecological sites, to protect those features which set them apart and will consider sale or trade of these properties for their long-term protection.

Watersheds: Boise Cascade will manage its forests to meet state and federal regulations and guidelines for water quality.

Soil: Boise Cascade recognizes that the overall productivity of its forests is inherent in the soil. Forest management activities will be conducted to maintain long-term soil productivity.

Cumulative Effects: Boise Cascade understands that the combined impacts of operations by the Corporation and its neighbors may have effects beyond the intent of each individual. Boise Cascade will manage its own affairs with an awareness of this potential impact.

Harvesting: Boise Cascade recognizes that forest management activities may change the visual landscape. Boise Cascade is sensitive to visual concerns and is committed to perpetuating the beauty of its forest, including the prompt reforestation of all Corporation lands following final harvest.

Forest Management Philosophy and Objectives for the Idaho Department of Lands for the Management of State Endowment Lands

Mission Statement: The mission of the Idaho Department of Lands is to manage endowment trust lands for the beneficiaries and protect natural resources for the people of Idaho.

The mission of the Idaho Department of Lands, consistent with the Idaho Admissions Act, the State Constitution, the State Statues, and the policies of the State Board of Land Commissioners shall be to:

1. Exercise management, protection, control and disposition of the state endowment lands and resources thereon. These lands shall be administered to maximize revenues over time to the endowment funds for the beneficiary institutions consistent with sound long-term management practices based on land capabilities.
2. Administer the coordinated management, control and disposition of the state-owned beds of navigable lakes, rivers and streams in accordance with the Public Trust Doctrine to provide for their navigational, recreational, commerce, fishery or other public trust uses. These lands shall be administered for the greatest benefit to the public – not commerce alone or for economic reasons alone.
3. Perform all regulatory functions in an unobtrusive, fair and impartial fashion. Primary emphasis shall be placed on preventing or avoiding harm to, abuse of, or loss of lands and resources, and shall be based upon educational and cooperative programs with the public whenever possible.

(IDL - OM 102)

Policy: Forest management activities shall be designed to protect and maintain or enhance site productivity and air and water quality. Soil structure, fertility, and moisture-holding ability shall be maintained to sustain the site’s functional capacity to support optimum regeneration and tree growth. (IDL - OM 901)

Non-industrial Private Owners

In a survey, landowners reported the following reasons for owning their parcels of forestland (Force and Lee 1989):

Benefits Percent of all owners

• Grazing 61%
• Wildlife Appreciation 57%
• Aesthetic Enjoyment 55%
• Wood for Domestic Use 43%
• Hunting and Fishing 37%
• Hiking or Backpacking 31%
• Picnicking or Camping 26%
• Timber 22%
• Residence 22%
• Investment 22%
• Skiing or Snowmobiling 18%
• Mining 10%
• No Particular Use 7%
• Xmas Tree Sales 2%

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

Yes, in a relative sense, using each planning process period (10 years). Assessing differences in management objectives using measurements made over time will be difficult and will require interdisciplinary teams to accomplish. Measurements made over time will require judgement to assess the quality of changes.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

This indicator will provide information, and a tool that can be used by landowners and other stakeholders to help determine their contributions to ecosystem and social sustainability.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted.

Strengths: the implementation that we propose, that of using the check-off list as a quick indicator of contributions to sustainability, is very easy to do and can provide a basis for further management decisions and planning.

Weakness: No standard methodology exists for determining if objectives are clearly stated in terms of major functions of the forest. Bias may complicate team assessments.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

No

Box S: References:

1997 Timberland Resources Annual Management Report, Boise Cascade Internal Document, Boise, Idaho

Force, J.E.and H. W. Lee. 1989. Non-Industrial Private Forest Land Use In Southern Idaho, A Survey of Landowner Objectives. University of Idaho, Contribution No. 459 Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, Idaho

Idaho State, Department of Lands, Operations Manual, Memorandum 102, Boise, Idaho

Idaho State, Department of Lands, Operations Manual, Memorandum 901, Boise, Idaho

USDA Forest Service-Intermountain Region-BNF. Land and resource management plan for the Boise National Forest. Chapter IV-501 and II-2.

CIFOR References: Forest management issues sent from Indonesia to North American Team by e-mail on June, 23^rd 1998. 58p.

Further reading (from CIFOR Source):

• Panayotou, T. and P.S. Ashton. 1992. Not by Timber Alone: Economics and Ecology for sustaining Tropical Forests. Island Press. Washington, D.C.
• Prahbu, R., Colfer, C.J.P., Venkateswarlu, P., Lay, C.T., Soekmadi, R. and E. Wollenberg.
• Testing Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Forests: Phase 1 Final Report. CIFOR Special Publication. CIFOR. Bogor.
• Prabhu, R.B., Weidelt, H.-J., and S. Leinert. 1993. Sustainable Management of Tropical Rainforest: Experience, Risks, and Opportunities. An Investigation Based on Four Casestudies. BMZ. Bonn.
• Stork, N.E., Boyle, T.J.B, Dale, V., Eeley, H., Finegan, B., Lawes, M., Manokaran, N., Prabhu, R., and J. Soberon. 1997. Criteria and Indicators for Assessing the Sustainability
• of Forest Management: Conservation of Biodiversity. Working Paper No. 17. CIFOR. Bogor.
• Young, R. A. and R. L. Giese. (ed.). 1982. Introduction to Forest Science. 2nd Edition. John Willey & Sons. New York.

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here.

This indicator, along with many others, includes terms such as "clearly," that are judgmental terms. This makes measurements very difficult to accomplish.

The Boise Plan includes hundreds of pages of objectives with no summary statements.