Principle - CCFM 2.0 Maintenance and enhancement of Forest Ecosystem Condition and Productivity.

Criterion- CIFOR 2.1 Ecosystem Function is Maintained

Indicator - CIFOR 2.1.2 Ecologically Sensitive Areas, Especially Buffer Zones along Water Courses are Protected.

Box B: Definition:

The indicator is somewhat linked to CIFOR 2.3.1 Representative areas, especially sites of ecological importance, are maintained. CIFOR 2.1.2 tends to operate at a different scale as buffer zones near streams are a fine-scale pattern while representative areas tend to be more large scale.

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

The same size of buffer strip may not apply equally to each type of landowner. For example, all landowners in Idaho don’t have to have the PACFISH or INFISH buffers. These apply only to Federal lands at present. However, such standards may come to play if they are part of regulations for endangered species. Canada and Mexico may use or disregard such standards as their respective governments see fit.

In the United States the use of buffers began after the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960. (See Gegory, 1997 for a detailed discussion especially pages 81-82).

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR: 2.3.1

CCFM: 1.1.3

Notes:

The indicator is diagnostic but not predictive as it does not show a response to stress.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Protection of areas near water courses (riparian areas) is widely viewed as an important characteristic of ecosystem sustainability. Water bodies and their associated vegetation is distinct from the surrounding vegetation matrix.

"Ecosystems are unique assemblages of communities and their environments: riparian areas are "ecotones" or interfaces between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Sharp gradients in environmental conditions, ecological processes, and species across the transitional zone between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems make riparian areas one of the most diverse and dynamic portions of forested landscapes." Gregory, 1997. P. 70.

"Most riparian guidelines lack explicit determination of the reference conditions that represent the goals of future management." Gregory, 1997, p. 72

"Riparian ecosystems are often the most valuable component of a forest landscape because they support a large diversity of plants and animals, some of which are found nowhere else, and because they are very productive. Just as importantly, they are essential to the well-being of streams, another type of ecosystem that contributes substantially to the overall biological diversity of a landscape. The simple rarity of riparian ecosystems is another index of their importance; they have never been very common, and over the centuries most have been destroyed by human activities. Management of riparian ecosystems can take two approaches: leaving a buffer strip along a stream in which no timber harvesting will take place, or carefully controlling the intensity of timber harvesting near streams to minimize its impact. A reasonable compromise would be to combine both approaches by identifying a narrow, not-cut strip along the stream, backed by a wider zone of low-intensity harvesting. Ideally, the actual widths of these strips and the nature of timber management to be allowed in the second zone should be determined on a case-by-case basis, but in most regions it will probably be necessary to set a policy on a larger scale." Hunter, 1990. P. 153.

"Historically, buffer zones or reserved areas have been used to restrict the array of management actions within unique habitats or sensitive-species areas. This action, although necessary as an immediate protection measure, can create administrative fragmentation of the forest and associated problems over time. Rarely is the dynamic nature of the reserved or buffered area considered and the disturbance events that created and maintained these sites are not conserved." Everett, Hessburg and Lillybridge, 1994.

In the test area the buffer is one site potential tree height from the stream. It is being applied on Federal lands in the test area.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Buffers are a useful assessment tool even with the limitations given by Everett, Hessburg and Lillybridge. It can be easily, if arbitrarily, defined (a buffer zone of x-dimensions) and applied to an area. Buffers are readily established by laws or regulations. Consequently, they can easily be evaluated on large landscapes. Whether or not they are effective for the stated purpose is much more difficult to determine and adherence to buffers requires field verification. Verification procedures may be costly in time and monies.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Measurement methods are the application of regulations to specific types of lands and tenures. For example, Table 5.1 of Gregory, 1997.

Examples include Best Management Practices by states or provinces with them, and various regulations by government agencies (e.g. PACFISH, INFISH, UCRB).

Box L: Data Required:

Data required is a record of applicable laws, standards and regulations by agency or organization.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Data used were those in regulations that apply to Federal Lands (PACFISH, INFISH, UCRB) and the State of Idaho Best Management Practices that applies to all landowners in the study area.

(Table 5.1. from Gregory, 1997)

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

As a set of rules and regulations it can easily be traced over time. Field verification of application of the standards is much more difficult to measure and requires some type of monitoring activities by landowners, organizations or agencies.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

It provides useful information. However, it does not recognize the dynamics of ecosystems and the processes that help maintain the distinctive characteristics of the buffered area. For a more complete review of the matter see Everett, Hessburg and Lillybridge, 1994.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accept, in part because it is an important part of many conservation strategies in North America and it is one of the simplest types of actions to put into regulations. It is much more difficult to practice on the site and may preclude other values and uses.

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

N/A

Box S: References:

• Everett, R.L., P.F. Hessburg, and T.R. Lillybridge. 1994. Emphasis Areas as an Alternative to Buffer Zones and Reserved Areas in the Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Processes. In: Sampson, R.N.; Adams, D. (eds.) 1994. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY. Pp. 283-284.
• Gregory. S.V. 1997. Riparian Management in the 21^st Century. In: Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin, (eds.). 1997. Creating a Forestry for the 21^st Century: the science of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington D.C. 475 p.
• Hunter, M.L. jr. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity. Regents/Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 370 p.
• Idaho Department of Lands. 1996. Best Management Practices; Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Water Quality. Idaho Department of Lands, Coeur d’Alene, Id. 33 p.
• National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland Health: New methods to Classify, Inventory, and monitor Rangelands. National Academy Press. Washington D. C. 180 p.
• Quigley, T.M., R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham (tech. eds.). 1996. Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-382. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 303 p.
• Rinne, J.N. 1993. Declining Southwestern Aquatic Habitats and Fishes: Are they Sustainable? In Covington, W.W. and Debano, L.F., Technical Coordinators. 1994. Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-247. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
• Thomas, J.W. (ed.). 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Agricultural Handbook No. 553. Washington D. C. 512 p.
• Troendle, C.A. and W.K. Olsen. 1993. Potential Effects of Timber Harvest and Water Management on Streamflow Dynamics and Sediment Transport. In Covington, W.W. and Debano, L.F., Technical Coordinators. 1994. Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-247. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
• Upper Columbia Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 1997. USDA, Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Boise, Idaho. Vol. 1. Various paging.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), Environmental Assessment Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact: interim strategies for managing fish producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions of Nevada, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1997. First Approximation Report for Sustainable Forest Management: Report of the United States on the Criteria and Indicators for the sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. Washington, D.C. Various paging.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Environment assessment for the implementation of interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watershed in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and portions of California. (PACFISH)
• West, N. E. 1993. Biodiversity of Rangelands. Journal of Range Management 46(1), January 1993: p. 2-13

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here