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

Criterion- CIFOR 2.1 Ecosystem Function is Maintained

Indicator - CIFOR 2.3 The capacity of the forest to regenerate naturally is ensured

Box B: Definition:

The capacity of the forest to regenerate naturally is ensured. This indicator is closely related to CCFM 2.2.2 which uses the following definition:

Ecosystems with greater regenerative capacity and a balanced distribution of forest types and age classes are considered to be more resilient and therefore more sustainable. CCFM p. 38.

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

N/A

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR: 2.2.4 3.2.2

CCFM: 2.2.2 1.1.1 1.1.2

Notes:

Natural regeneration is most of the time the result of a management practice. Silvicultural treatments are usually applied to specific sites and each one will show different capacity to regenerate naturally.

Notes:

By definition a sustainable forest should be able to replace itself. Otherwise it is a plantation. Plantations may come under a different set of criteria and indicators much more geared to meeting specific management objective such as maximizing wood fiber, rather than sustainable forest communities (the ecological context of sustainable forestry).

Notes:

Regeneration has close ties to structures and composition but is a process such as succession.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Steele, 1994 states: "Forest health is defined here as the capacity for self-renewal…" this is another way of saying: "The capacity of the forest to regenerate naturally is ensured".

"Forestry, like any other renewable resource management, involves disturbing natural systems to one degree or another and has as a central objective to do so in a sustainable way. For the ecologist, by far the most reliable strategy for achieving sustainability is to understand the historic forces that have shaped ecosystems and to work within the mechanism by which ecosystems sustain themselves." Perry and Amaranthus, 1997, p. 31

The definition still lacks clarity as the question arises: does it apply to the entire forest community (meaning all the associated flora and fauna) or just to the indigenous tree strata?

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Sustainable forestry in its most elemental characteristics is based on the assumption that a forest must be able to renew, replace, or regenerate itself. It is almost a form of circular reasoning to use the ability of a forest to regenerate naturally as an indicator of sustainability. It does relate to important factors that may affect regeneration such as soil, nutrient cycles, water relations, succession, other vegetation, climate, etc. So in a very real sense it represents an integrative indicator of the "health" of a forest system. Forest regeneration time-frames may well exceed those of an assessment.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Relevant methods pose a problem because the almost always require that some sort of time-frame for renewal be imposed. These time-frames are rarely ecological but tend to be more social values or management expectations. Hence the measurement methods are characteristically tied to management objectives, rather than inherent cycles of forest regeneration. Many ecological factors come into play and they are not the same from site to site, species to species and forest type to forest type. Some trees must have their seeds pass through the digestive system of specific animals (see Hunter, 1990, Chapters 2 and 4 for interesting examples of trees closely linked to specific fauna); while others such as conifers depend more on soils, weather and climate. Determining a measurement method is problematical in the extreme and so the indicator must be defined for each forest type or species.

O’Laughlin and others (1994) give 4 steps to measure forest health: "(1) select a representative set of indicators for a particular ecosystem; (2) establish baseline data, such as a historical range of variability; (3) develop standards against which to compare current conditions; and (4) establish a monitoring program to assess current conditions and modify baseline data as new trends develop." Pp. 65-66.

The U.S.D.A. Forest Service prepares an annual report on acres reforested by planting or natural methods. But "successful" is more difficult to gather from the reports and is tied to a time line requirement for reforestation (5-year) and success is qualified by meeting a minimum number of trees per acre.

The Idaho Department of Lands does not use reforestation standards in the same sense as the indicator but requires a minimum stocking per acre regardless of the reforestation or lack there of.

Canada has data in the National Forest Database in the REGEN project for Crown lands but no national database are available for private lands. CCFM p. 45.

An alternative way at looking at the indicator would be to compare the artificially regenerated areal extent with the naturally regenerated areal extent in relation to the total forest area.

An alternative way at looking at the indicator would be to compare the artificially regenerated areal extent with the naturally regenerated areal extent in relation to the total forest area. This is the same type of idea as discussed in W1.

As a proxy, the extent of forests compared to historical ranges does provide a relatively robust measurement at large scales. CCFM 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 address the same items as suggested by O’Laughlin and others and should be adopted as a proxy measurement.

Box L: Data Required:

As discussed above, the availability of data would vary greatly across North America. Canada uses the indicator as they have some data. The U.S.D.A. Forest Service collects similar information and reports on it (Annual Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Accomplishment Report Tables 9, 11 and 11a.) But information for other landowners is highly variable and not even recorded in many areas.

Data needed are the same as those for CCFM 1.1.1 and 1.1.2. That is the historical percentage and extent of a given forest type or species compared to the current situation.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test :

For U.S.D.A. Forest Service lands in the test area the Annual Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Accomplishment Report Tables 9, 11 and 11a for the past decade were used.

Jim Colla of the Idaho Department of Lands provided an explanation of how the State deals with reforestation through a phone conversation with the evaluator on June 22, 1998. The Idaho Forest Practices Act requires a minimum number of trees per acre be present; but this may be residual stocking and not regeneration.

Boise Cascade reports on reforestation as part of their management objectives.

For range of historical variation the Upper Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project (UCRB) provides considerable information and relevant examples in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS. This chapter has maps and information for various forest and rangeland vegetation types as well as selected biota comparing historical conditions to current conditions.

Box N: Example Results:

An example is Maps 2-10a and 2-10b in Chapter 2, pages 60 and 61 UCRB draft DEIS.

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

The indicator can be easily tracked over time once the historical value is given. It is more difficult to derive the historical information and it may not be possible on all vegetation types.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value :

Information value is assumed to be high.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Rejected –

I suggest that this indicator is more of a principle or criterion rather than an indicator as it is a basic part of the condition of sustainability that cannot be separated from it.

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

It better fits within the scope of CIFOR 3.2. - Silvicultural systems prescribed and appropriate to forest type and produce grown.

Another alternative is to revise or adapt it to CCFM 1.1.1 and CCFM 1.1.2.

Box S: References :

• Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM). 1996. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada, Technical Report. Natural Resources Canada. Canadian Forest Service Cat. Fo75-3/6-1997E. Ottawa ON. 138 p.
• Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) 1998. Criteria & Indicator Resource Book. Draft dated March 18, 1998. Bogor, Indonesia. 212 p.
• Kaufmann and others. 1994. An Ecological Basis for Ecosystem Management. General Technical Report RM-246. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 22 p.
• Morgan, P. and others. 1994. Historical Range of Variability: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change. In: Sampson, R.N.; Adams, D. (eds.) 1994. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY.
• O’Laughlin J. and others. 1994. Defining and Measuring Forest Health. In: Sampson, R.N.; Adams, D. (eds.) 1994. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY.
• Ogle, K., and V. DuMond. 1997. Historical Vegetation on National Forest Lands in the Intermountain Region. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. 129 p.
• Perry, D. A. and M.P. Amaranthus. 1997. Disturbance, Recovery, and Stability. 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.
• Steele, R. 1994. The Role of Succession in Forest Health. In: Sampson, R.N.; Adams, D. (eds.) 1994. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. Haworth Press: Binghamton, NY.
• 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.

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here

This and indicator W1 (Percentage of area successfully naturally regenerated and artificially regenerated) are very similar. Both are better handled in CIFOR 3.2.2 Silvicultural systems prescribed and appropriate to forest type and produce grown.