Principle - CCFM 2.0 Maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition and productivity

Criterion - CCFM 2.2 Ecosystem resilience

Box B: Definition

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

Small areas would be much more difficult to assess than would be larger landscapes. The Idaho Department of Lands does not measure, record or report such information as part of the Best Management Practices for the State. This indicator ties more directly to management than as an indicator of Ecosystem Resilience.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR: 2.4.1 2.3 3.2.2

CCFM: 2.2.1 1.1.1

Notes:

Reforestation success is both diagnostic and predictive in this context in that if it is not taking place then the forest cannot be sustained. The predictive value is lower but real. It is lower because there may be other factors other than regeneration success (over a selected time period) that may alter the sustainability of a forest. American chestnut is an example; the species still sends up shoots of regeneration but these are killed by a pathogen before they attain maturity, browsing of shoots by animals is another example.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Resilience reflects the persistence of ecosystems and their capacity to absorb changes and disturbances while maintaining productivity levels and relationships among populations. 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.37-38.

The above assumes that succession is linear and cyclic but the time frames need to be defined as succession may take more time on some sites than others. It also assumes that more diverse systems are more "resilient". This is not always the case, especially in severe environments where simple systems may show less diversity but be more sustainable than other systems. For example: the historical vegetation community of a sagebrush/perennial grass and forb steppe in southern Idaho has been replaced over much of its former extent by a simpler and less diverse annual grassland vegetation that shows no trend to return to the more diverse shrub steppe.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

To date, no common method exists for determining resilience. Return time following disturbances can be measured experimentally in two ways. First, it can be assessed by the time it takes for populations to return to some pre-disturbance condition. However, a serious gap in this approach is the difficulty in determining when a population has recovered. A second measure of resilience is to estimate variability in population densities. (Greater resilience implies a greater tendency for populations to move toward mean densities.) A variation on the second method is to estimate resilience using energy and nutrient flows through different functional groups in the community. CCFM p. 37.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

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 timeline 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.

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 Reoprt Tables 9, 11 and 11a.) But information for other landowners is highly variable and not even recorded in many areas.

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 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.

Box N: Example Results:

N/A

Box O: Assessing the Practicality :

This indicator better fits into the management plans of a landowner rather than as an indicator of ecosystem resilience. It would require a massive inventory to make it applicable to all land ownerships.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

The information value is high for some managers (e.g. Boise-Cascade and the Forest Service) but is not considered essential for other landowners and agencies. It is more relevant to management objectives than it is to the criterion.

Reject this indicator in this context.

Conceptually, ecosystem resilience is an essential component of sustainable ecosystems. To measure directly is problematical as recovery in ecosystems operates at time scales well beyond that of an assessment of a particular area. (Ecosystem resilience in the form of recovery of populations may require decades if not centuries.)

The indicator of percentage of area naturally regenerated and artificially regenerated is more tied to management objectives than as a clear indicator of ecosystem resilience. Time lines, etc. are important for management or regeneration standard of 3-5 years in BMP’s. Ecosystems often have inherently longer cycles.

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

The intent of the indicator is better met with CIFOR 3.2.2 - Silvicultural systems prescribed and appropriate to forest type and produce grown.

CIFOR 2.4.1 and CCFM 2.2.1 are more usable indices of ecosystem resilience than is CCFM 2.2.2.

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.
• 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.
• 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