North American Test of Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forestry
3.0 The Boise Test Site
The Boise test site was selected by the USDA-Forest Service as an excellent place to conduct this test for the following reasons:
The Boise Test Site encompasses an area of about 4.3 million acres (1.7 million hectares) and is located in the USDA Forest Service’s southwestern section of the State of Idaho, U.S.A. (Figure 1). The Boise site represents a highly managed forest area and is generally typical of conditions in the Idaho Batholith area of the Intermountain Region. Land ownership in the Test Site is 2.7 million acres (1.1 million ha.)(64%) National Forest (Boise and Payette National Forests), 211,222 acres (85,479 ha.)(5%) Bureau of Land Management, 200,461 acres (81,124 ha.)(5%) State of Idaho, 176,069 acres (71,253 ha.)(4%) Boise Cascade Corporation, and 896,957 acres (362,945 ha.)(21%) other private land ownership (Figure 2).
Figure 1. General location of the Boise Study Area, Idaho, USA
Figure 2. Land ownership in the Boise Study Area.
3.2 Landowners and Land Management Objectives
The following section provides a general description and overview of major landowners and their land management objectives in the Boise Test Site. The descriptions are based primarily on presentations made to the CIFOR test team by landowner representatives during the course of the field test, and are not meant to be comprehensive listings of all management objectives of these groups.
All these landowners are committed to sustainable forest management, which means maintaining multiple values on the lands they manage. All the landowners see a need to plan for ecological and social as well as economic concerns.
Table 2. Some common sustainability goals among landowners in the Boise Study Area.
National Forests |
Idaho State Lands |
Boise Cascade Corporation |
Bureau of Land Management |
|
| Ecological / Biophysical | ||||
| maintain health of forest primarily for ecosystem values | l |
|||
| maintain health of forest primarily for timber production | l |
l |
||
| maintain health of forest for both ecosystem and timber | l |
l |
l |
l |
| maintain properly functioning wetlands & riparian areas | l |
l |
l |
l |
| maintain water quality | l |
l |
l |
l |
| control erosion | l |
l |
l |
l |
| maintain productivity of the soil | l |
l |
l |
l |
| manage for mineral resources | l |
l |
l |
l |
| maintain air quality | l |
l |
l |
l |
| manage for wildlife habitat | l |
l |
l |
l |
| manage for wildlife species | l |
l |
l |
l |
| maintain biodiversity (vegetation and wildlife) | l |
l |
l |
l |
| manage exotics/ weeds | l |
l |
l |
l |
| manage grazing/ rangelands | l |
l |
l |
l |
| recognize fire as a natural process | l |
l |
l |
l |
| recognize habitat fragmentation as an issue | l |
l |
l |
|
| Social | ||||
| compile information to under-stand socio-economic effects of forest management | l |
l |
l |
|
| involve public in plan development / review | l |
l |
l |
|
| manage lands to support social institutions (e.g. schools) | l |
|||
| meet local employment needs | l |
l |
l |
l |
| provide for sustainability of rural communities | l |
l |
l |
l |
| provide for multiple use of lands | l |
l |
l |
l |
| provide for recreational use of lands | l |
l |
l |
l |
| recognize aesthetic values of forests | l |
l |
l |
l |
| Economic | ||||
| lands managed principally to generate revenue | l |
l |
||
| long-term, sustained yield philosophy applied to timber harvest | l |
l |
l |
l |
| identification of lands suitable for timber production | l |
l |
l |
l |
| calculation of timber volume flows to area mills | l |
l |
||
| goal is to maximize financial returns to state institutions | l |
|||
| goal is to maintain shareholder values | l |
|||
| goal is to maintain company values | l |
|||
| goal is to maintain industry values (e.g. AF&PA membership conditions) | l |
|||
| active timber sale program | l |
l |
l |
|
| timber sold at public auctions | l |
|||
| lands cannot be sold for other uses | l |
|||
| lands can be leased or traded | l |
l |
l |
l |
| Forest Management Planning and Policy | ||||
| observe Forest Practices Act | l |
l |
l |
l |
| observe Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management | l |
l |
l |
l |
| incorporate recommendations / decisions of ICBEMP into management planning | l |
l |
||
| adopt ecosystem management strategies | l |
l |
l |
l |
| adopt sustained yield strategies | l |
l |
l |
l |
| conduct forest inventories | l |
l |
l |
l |
| maintain multiple-resource data sets | l |
l |
l |
l |
| recognize spatial scale as important in forest management | l |
l |
l |
l |
| officially designate wilderness areas | l |
|||
| identification of areas with special management needs | l |
l |
l |
l |
| Yield and Harvest | ||||
| provide for multiple uses | l |
l |
l |
l |
| provide for sustainable, continuous flow of goods | l |
l |
||
| promote active harvesting | l |
l |
||
| maintain sustainable timber supply | l |
l |
l |
l |
| forest development program looks at use of herbicides / fertilizers | l |
l |
3.3 Ecosystem Management in the Boise Study Area
In June 1992, the Chief of the Forest Service directed that ecosystem management would be the central theme for the future Forest Service. Management would now focus on sustaining the interrelationships among all the physical, biological, and social components of the ecosystem. Ecosystem management was not seen as a wholesale abandonment of past management strategies, but as an evolutionary step towards assuring that Federal public lands and resource management "uses ecological knowledge at various scales to produce the desired resource values, products, services, and conditions in a way that also sustains the diversity and productivity of ecosystems" (USDA - Forest Service, 1996b)
Meeting ecosystem management objectives requires a basic understanding of ecological processes and interactions before deciding what type of management may be appropriate. Landscape analyses or assessments may be used to gain such understanding and to "frame" the desired conditions that are expected to result if planning goals are fully achieved. The concept of historical range of variability (HRV)(i.e. the ecosystem’s historical range of responses to disturbance) is used as a major part in determining desired conditions (USDA - Forest Service, 1996b).
The change in the Forest Service’s management direction, the recent impacts of wildfires, the work of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management study, and new scientific information about aquatic and terrestrial systems, were all factors in convincing the area’s National Forests to revise their Forest Management Plans. Revisions to the Plan may revise the riparian value class system to accommodate recent changes in management direction emphasizing threatened, endangered and sensitive fish species and associated priority and key watersheds. The existing riparian value class system was seen as not reflecting the natural ecological diversity and complexity of streams and riparian areas (USDA - Forest Service, 1996).
An estimated 19.7% of land currently suitable for timber management may lie within streamside Riparian Habitat Conservation areas (RHCAs) and may not be available for long-term timber production given the scientific findings of "Pacfish" (an interim strategy for restoring and protecting habitat for anadromous fisheries in watersheds under federal ownership in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Northern California) and the Upper Columbia River Basin. Additionally, the mix of silvicultural prescriptions assumed in the Forest Plan are not considered appropriate for management of the existing forest conditions, given new knowledge of forest health issues, ecosystem management strategies, and historical ranges of variability of the forest environment (USDA - Forest Service, 1996).
Changes in the desired future conditions and goals for the Forest Plan would include addressing fire as an important ecological process. Implementing techniques to restore the resilience of ponderosa pine forests could result in changes to the long-term levels of goods and services the Forest provides over much of its area.