SCIENCE Biodiversityand SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY

SCIENCE BIODIVERSITYand SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY

A FINDINGS REPORT OF THE National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry

A Program Conducted by the National Council for Science and the Environment Improving the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking NCSE The mission of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF or Commission) is to improve the NCSSF operates under the scientific basis for developing, implementing, and evaluating sustainable auspices of the National forestry in the United States. Council for Science and The Commission is an independent, non-advocacy, multi-stakeholder the Environment (NCSE), body that plans and oversees the NCSSF program. It includes 16 leading a non-advocacy, not-for-profit scientists and forest management professionals from government, indus- organization dedicated to improving the scientific basis try, academia, and environmental organizations—all respected opinion for environmental decision leaders in diverse fields with broad perspectives. Members serve as making. individuals rather than as official representatives of their organizations. The Commission convenes at least twice a year to plan and oversee NCSE promotes interdiscipli- the program. Members’ names and affiliations are listed on page 2. nary research that connects The primary goal of the NCSSF program is to build a better scientific the life, physical, and social underpinning for assessing and improving sustainable forest management sciences and engineering. practices. The program strives to produce information and tools of the highest technical quality and greatest relevancy to improving forest Communication and outreach policy, management, and practice. are integral components of The initial five-year phase of the program focuses on the relationship these collaborative research between biodiversity and sustainable forest management. The program efforts that link scientific results to the needs of addresses information needs for managed forestlands, both industrial and decision makers. non-industrial, in the continental United States. Syntheses and surveys, research and assessments, tool development, and communication and outreach activities all contribute to the program’s goals. The Commission does not promote specific policy positions, promul- gate management practices, or endorse any particular sustainable forest management certification systems. However, the results of the NCSSF program provide a stronger scientific basis for evaluating forest practices and certification systems, comparing them more objectively, effectively assessing their progress, and developing more innovative approaches to forest management. Applications of the Commission’s work include: • informing forest management decisions, conservation plans, and governmental and private sector policies • providing a sound ecological framework for long term economic management of forests • refining and evaluating certification systems such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Green Tag, and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).

More information on the NCSSF program and results of specific projects are available on our web site at: www.ncssf.org.

Sponsors of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry SCIENCE BIODIVERSITYand SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY

A FINDINGS REPORT OF THE National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry

Washington, DC January 4, 2005

A Program Conducted by the National Council for Science and the Environment Improving the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking

When citing this report, please use the following reference: NCSSF, 2005. Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry: A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF), Washington, DC. COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP—2004

Hal Salwasser, PhD, Commission Chairman (2003-2005) V. Alaric Sample, PhD Dean, College of Forestry President Oregon State University Pinchot Institute for Conservation Greg Aplet, PhD To m Thompson Senior Forest Scientist Deputy Chief, National Forest System The Wilderness Society USDA Forest Service Ann Bartuska, PhD Scott Wallinger Deputy Chief, Research & Development Senior Vice President (Retired) USDA Forest Service Mead Westvaco, Forest Science Laboratory Joyce Berry, PhD Dean, College of Natural Resources J. Christopher Bernabo, PhD Colorado State University Director, NCSSF Program James Brown National Council for Science and the Environment Natural Resources Policy Director, Retired Aaron Lien Oregon Governor’s Office Program Coordinator, NCSSF Bruce J. Cabarle, PhD National Council for Science and the Environment Director, Global Forestry Programs World Wildlife Federation Former Commission Members Norm L. Christensen, PhD (chair 2002-2003) Charles H. Collins Professor of Ecology Managing Director Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University The Forestland Group, LLC. Nils Christoffersen 2001-2002 Deputy Director Wallace Covington, PhD Wallowa Resources Regents Professor of Forest Ecology John C. Gordon, PhD (chair 2001-2002) Northern Arizona University Pinchot Professor of Forestry (Emeritus) 2001-2003 Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Phil Janik Sharon Haines, PhD Chief Operating Officer (Retired) Manager of Sustainable Forestry USDA Forest Service International Paper 2001-2002 Alan A. Lucier, PhD Mark Schaefer, PhD Senior Vice President President and CEO National Council for Air and Stream Improvement NatureServe 2001-2003 David Perry, PhD Professor (Emeritus) Mark Schaffer, PhD Oregon State University Program Officer for the Environment Doris Duke Charitable Foundation H. Ronald Pulliam, PhD (Formerly Defenders of Wildlife) Regents Professor of Ecology 2001-2003 University of Georgia

2 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry CONTENTS

OVERVIEW...... 4

1 INTRODUCTION...... 6 The Commission’s Role...... 6 The NCSSF Program ...... 8 Report Purpose and Organization ...... 8 Defining Terms Used in the Report...... 9

2 CONTEXT ...... 10 Advancing Science for Sustainable Forestry ...... 10 Forests in Context ...... 11 The Forest Continuum ...... 12 Changing Forest Ownerships ...... 13 Forestry and Sustainability ...... 13 Biodiversity Indicators ...... 14

3 FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS...... 15 Area 1: The effectiveness of biodiversity conservation is largely determined by interactions between stand- and landscape-level patterns...... 16 Implications of Area 1 Findings for Sustainable Forestry...... 20

Area 2: Sustaining disturbance dynamics within appropriate ranges sustains biodiversity and ecosystem services...... 21 Implications of Area 2 Findings for Sustainable Forestry...... 26

Area 3: Biodiversity indicators must be matched to land-use objectives...... 28 Implications of Area 3 Findings for Sustainable Forestry...... 32

Area 4: Sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation require management that recognizes and adapts to new information, changing environments, and shifting social priorities ...... 34 Implications of Area 4 Findings for Sustainable Forestry...... 40

4 WORK IN PROGRESS ...... 42 Adaptive Management of NCSSF ...... 42 Next Steps...... 43

APPENDIX ...... 46 Table A-I: NCSSF Project Information (Codes as referred to in report) ...... 46 Table A-II: NCSSF Phase 1 Program Timeline ...... 49

REFERENCES ...... 50

Acknowledgments ...... 52

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 3 OVERVIEW

The National Commission on and information, (2) polarization Area 1: The effectiveness of Science for Sustainable Forestry within the field, (3) misperceptions biodiversity conservation is largely (NCSSF or Commission) includes and lack of public awareness, and determined by interactions leading scientists and forest man- (4) lack of financial resources. The between stand- and landscape- agement professionals from gov- NCSSF program addresses the level patterns. ernment, industry, academia, and first three of these, which com- • Finding 1A. Biodiversity environmental organizations who prise more than three-fourths conservation requires knowl- collaboratively plan and oversee of the users’ identified barriers. edge and policies that cross the NCSSF program. This inde- The Commission has synthe- landscape levels. pendent, multi-stakeholder char- sized existing information into • Finding 1B. Stand-level acter enables the Commission to useable knowledge, sponsored diversity is heavily influenced serve as an “honest broker” who projects to fill key research gaps, by disturbance legacies. can address controversial issues developed tools for practical • Finding 1C. Biodiversity more objectively. The applications, and reached agree- correlates to spatial variability Commission has completed about ment on important issues related in forest management. half of its initial five-year program to biodiversity and sustainable • Finding 1D. Forest fragments to advance the science and practice forestry. The findings presented support reduced levels of of biodiversity conservation in here are based on the results of biodiversity. sustainable forestry. NCSSF-funded projects, the The Commission has found Commissioners’ expertise, and Implications: Landscape-level infor- that appropriate forest policies three years of dialogue among mation is necessary to the full use and practices can be beneficial to themselves, as well as discussions of science in conservation efforts biodiversity. While gaps in knowl- with a wide range of experts and everywhere. The problem with edge remain, the Commission’s stakeholders. The NCSSF find- a top-down, “how should the findings will help forestry practi- ings are an especially valuable world look proportionally?” view tioners working in the field, forest resource for the broad forestry of scientific findings is that a managers, and policy makers do a community because a wide range single management organization better job of conserving biodiver- of sources have been reviewed, generally can’t change the mix sity within the context of sustain- assessed and synthesized into of ownerships and management able forestry. These groups are the consensus judgments by a credible practices. Most landowners can’t primary audience for this report independent body of diverse control or influence both policy because they can use NCSSF’s experts and representative and ownership-level activities in findings to develop and apply poli- stakeholders. combination. A further complica- cies and practices that will con- The greatest threat to forest tion is that the specifics of many serve biodiversity more effectively. sustainability and biodiversity landscape-level management NCSSF also produces technical lies in conversion of forestlands strategies can’t be generalized. reports for use by researchers. to other uses. This often results The Commission identified the when markets undervalue natural Area 2: Sustaining disturbance major obstacles that practitioners, systems and populations. With dynamics within appropriate managers and policy makers face demands on forests increasing, ranges sustains biodiversity in applying sustainable forestry not all forests can sustain the and ecosystem services. policies and practices through same benefits at all times. Forest • Finding 2A. The historical a nationwide survey and users’ reserves are necessary but insuffi- range of variation (HRV) is workshops conducted in partner- cient for biodiversity conservation. a useful but limited concept ship with the National Forest In that context, NCSSF offers for managing biodiversity. Foundation (NFF). The users initial findings in four areas. • Finding 2B. Fire significantly identified four major barriers to influences patterns of biodiver- sustainable forestry, in priority sity within and among forest order they are: (1) lack of data ecosystems.

4 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry • Finding 2C. An interdiscipli- • Finding 3C. A logically struc- • Finding 4D. The increasing nary scientific approach is tured process is needed for interest in and gathering of necessary to address invasive selecting indicators. non-timber forest products has species. • Finding 3D. An effective set both positive and negative • Finding 2D. Variations in of indicators includes three implications for sustaining disturbance dynamics are often different types that cover five biodiversity. connected to changes in climate, separate functions. • Finding 4E. Effective manage- human land use and management is benefited by access to ment. Implications: Indicators are a rela- accurate relevant information tively few measures that provide and decision support tools. Implications: Departures from the information about the status of as • Finding 4F. Biodiversity historical range of variation (HRV) many unmeasured biodiversity conservation theories require will often have adverse conse- elements as possible. There is a adaptive management to assess quences for native biodiversity. need to rethink the role of indica- their validity. The HRV concept must be tors and how they are selected and updated and adapted with new used in certification systems or Implications: Developing and information, such as data about regulatory programs. NCSSF applying cost-effective conserva- climate change, invasive species, found that commonly measured tion strategies and practices can and fragmentation, to create a and monitored features of forestry, enhance biodiversity, but biodiver- “future range of variation” (FRV). that were described by practition- sity conservation efforts are con- Attempting to restore ecosystems ers as biodiversity indicators, are strained by tract size and history, to a single set of conditions that not always congruent with the ownership patterns, and overall existed before European settle- indicators best suited for measur- management goals. Uncertainties ment of North America won’t ing biodiversity values. An about complex interactions suffice because strategies must NCSSF-sponsored tool (Project highlight the growing importance consider each site’s historical A8) provides a flexible system to of using adaptive management legacies and composition as well as select indicators tailored to sus- approaches that bring scientists, climate forecasts and other antici- taining specific biodiversity values. managers, and stakeholders pated future changes. together to collaboratively analyze Management efforts should focus Area 4: Sustainable forestry and and assess policies, plans, and on sites with the highest biodiver- biodiversity conservation require practices. sity values. management that recognizes and adapts to new information, chang- Over the next two years, NCSSF’s Area 3: Biodiversity indicators ing environments, and shifting ongoing work will yield additional must be matched to land-use social priorities. useful findings. Equally important, objectives. • Finding 4A. Management we will generate additional practi- • Finding 3A. Biodiversity is too practices must adapt to evolving cal tools—based on science and broad a concept and too variable knowledge. tested for their utility—to enable across forest types to be repre- • Finding 4B. Biodiversity practitioners to achieve more sented by a universal set of conservation requires traditional progress where it counts: across indicators. forestry practices and more. America’s diverse forest land- • Finding 3B. Clear objectives • Finding 4C. Forest manage- scapes. The gaps that are revealed and processes are crucial to ment under different ownership along the way will highlight selecting appropriate sets of types has implications for areas where new research is most indicators. biodiversity. needed for further progress on the ground in the future.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 5 INTRODUCTION

The Commission’s Role 1 he National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF or Commission) is working to improve the scientific basis of sustainable forestry practice, management, and policy. NCSSF is funded by a consortium of foundations whose leaders recognize the need for better science to support sustainable forestry and biodiversity decisions. These sponsors include the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, the Packard Foundation, and the National Forest Foundation. NCSSF is unique in using a diverse group of stakeholders and experts to collaboratively plan and oversee a science program designed to yield results relevant to sustainable forestry applications. TTo ensure that the program includes both the best science and the most useful applications, about half of the Commission’s 16 members are “producers” of information (researchers/educators) and the other half are “users” of that information (practitioners/decision makers). All of the members are leading professionals drawn from diverse sectors, including government, industry, academia, and environmental organizations. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

6 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry As an independent, multi-stakeholder body, the Commission works to develop consensus on the science and its implications, as well as finding and filling gaps in understanding and developing the tools needed to implement and evaluate sustainable forestry in the United States. The Commission and its sponsors agreed that NCSSF would focus the program’s first five-year phase on the critical intersection of biodiversity and sustainable forestry, an area with major gaps in understanding and lack of available tools. The potential benefits to society of forests on any geographic scale ultimately depends on the mix of plants and animals that comprise the forest. Better scientific understanding of biodiversity will provide a context for addressing the social, ecological, and economic aspects of sustainable forestry. Through ongoing discussions among themselves and with stakeholders, the Commissioners: • identify users’ information needs • define specific projects to meet users’ needs • integrate and interpret the program’s results • communicate the results and findings.

Priority needs identified by the Commission become requests for proposals (RFPs). To encourage the best qualified investigators and organizations to compete for the work, the RFPs are issued publicly on the NCSSF web site, advertised in journals, and sent by e-mail to thousands of potential applicants. External review panels, composed Figure 1 of practitioners as well as scientists, NCSSF Role Linking Science and Management Needs evaluate submitted proposals to select those that are both of the highest technical quality and most relevant to users’ needs. NCSSF Forest Managers also conducts projects and Relevant Management communication activities led by Tools and Questions Commission members and other Information recognized leaders, as well as program staff. Commission members remain actively engaged through the life Research Information of each project, serving as project and Development Needs stewards who oversee the research NCSSF by tracking progress from incep- tion to final product. This also provides a first level of critical review and establishes a relationship between researchers and Research Research the Commissioners. During its Priorities Questions first three years, the Commission Scientific provided an average of more than Community

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 7 $1 million in project funding them more effective for practical • Research and Assessments: annually. This is less than 1% of applications. Projects to develop relevant total U.S. forestry research fund- Through a nationwide survey new knowledge and to assess the ing, so NCSSF has focused its and workshops jointly conducted significance of current scientific efforts on filling the science gaps by NCSSF and the National understanding for improving most crucial to advancing biodi- Forest Foundation (NFF), sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation in the context NCSSF’s target audience of infor- versity conservation. of sustainable forestry. mation users identified the lack of • Tool Development: Projects In planning and implementing data and information (Figure 2) to develop new tools to assess the program, the Commission uses as the most common barrier to biodiversity trends, forest adaptive management techniques, sustainable forest management health, ecosystem functions, conducting research and outreach (SFM). The NCSSF program and decision support systems activities and then applying what directly addresses this gap as its (DSSs) to provide scientific has been learned to the next top priority, sponsoring projects to understanding in usable forms annual round of activities. The improve the information and tools to help improve decision Commission regularly invites users available to implement and evalu- making. to define their information needs ate SFM approaches. • Communication and by using surveys, public meetings, NCSSF’s multi-stakeholder, Outreach: Proactive efforts and workshops that bring produc- consensus-building approach to that involve stakeholders in ers and users together for mutual identifying research needs and the program to enhance the learning. interpreting research results is relevancy and acceptance of As the NCSSF program pro- intended to reduce polarization, the results. Program results duces new tools and information, the second most common barrier. are widely communicated the Commission holds applications The Commission’s program and and disseminated through the workshops to provide small groups outreach activities help improve NCSSF web site, workshops, with hands-on experience using general awareness of technical symposia, briefings, reports, NCSSF-funded products. This issues and provide objective infor- peer-reviewed journal articles, experience helps users understand mation to address public misper- and popular publications. the project results and provides ceptions, the third barrier. feedback to the producers on how Table A-I in the Appendix (pg. 46) to improve their products to make The NCSSF Program lists NCSSF’s projects and major activities to date, and Table A-II The NCSSF program is science- (pg. 49) shows the general timeline Figure 2 based and results-oriented, for the first five years of the Obstacles to Sustainable with an emphasis on developing NCSSF program. Forestry knowledge and tools that are most directly relevant to improv- Report Purpose 23% ing sustainable forestry over the and Organization Polarization 19% next five to ten years. NCSSF within the field Public awareness/ addresses users’ priority needs The Commission has reached misperceptions 39% 19% through four program areas: agreement on many important Lack of data Lack of • Synthesis and Surveys: issues related to biodiversity and and information financial resources Projects to evaluate and sustainable forestry. The findings document the existing knowl- presented in this report have value edge base, data, and models. to the broad forestry community Source: Synthesizing and effectively because this independent body of NCSSF–NFF Users’ Needs Workshops 2003 communicating existing infor- diverse stakeholders and experts mation is at least as important has served as an “honest broker” as developing new information as it reviewed and assessed a wide and protocols that support range of resources and synthesized biodiversity goals. them into consensus judgments.

8 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry This report presents the Defining Terms Used mals and other living organisms— Commission’s findings to date in the Report and the processes, functions, and about sustainable forestry and structures that sustain that variety biodiversity conservation, based Sustainable forestry is the suite and allow it to adapt to changing on the results to date of NCSSF- of forest policies, plans, and prac- circumstances. This includes the funded projects and the tices that seek to sustain a speci- complexity of gene pools, species, Commissioners’ deliberations over fied array of forest benefits in a communities, and ecosystems at the last three years. This Findings particular place. Sustainability is spatial scales from local to regional Report is intended primarily for a process and a goal, not a single to global. It is also known simply readers who will use the informa- end-point condition. The suite of as “biodiversity” or natural her- tion to make decisions—working benefits may include various val- itage, and commonly includes all foresters in the field, forest man- ues, uses, products, functions, and of the plants, animals, and other agers, and policy makers. NCSSF services from forests, including but organisms native or indigenous to also produces technical reports not limited to wood, recreation, a place. Biodiversity is the first of and scientific journal publications water quality, biodiversity, and seven Montreal Process Criteria to inform the research community. atmospheric processes. This defi- and Indicators (C&I), developed • Section 1, “Introduction,” nition of sustainable forestry rec- after the 1992 United Nations provides an overview of the ognizes that not all forests can be Conference on Environment and Commission’s role and how expected to—or are capable of— Development to assist countries to the Commission defined the sustaining the same suite of bene- inventory the elements of sustain- emphasis of the first five years fits at all times. The place can able forestry. of program activity. range from as small as a single The following terms are used • Section 2, “Context,” tract of forest to an area the size frequently throughout this report: outlines the Commission’s of watersheds, states, regions, • Forest structure is the physical consensus on major issues nations, or the world. As the distribution of components of in biodiversity and sustain- defined place increases to the scale a forest including height, diame- able forestry, developed of a state or nation, the suite of ter, crown layer, and stems of through three years forest benefits to be sustained trees, shrubs, non-woody under- of dialogue among increases to approach all possible story plants, snags (standing Commissioners and with values. The length of time over dead trees), and downed woody stakeholders, and which which the array of benefits is to debris. guides priorities for the be sustained in a particular place •A watershed is an area drained NCSSF program. varies, but is commonly thought by a single stream, river, or • Section 3, “Findings and of in terms of decades or centuries drainage network. Implications,” provides rather than years, and it may be • Landscape is a general term the major findings of the influenced over time by changes that may imply scales from Commission to date and in demand for forest products and small watersheds to regions. discusses the implications of services, new information and •A stand is a distinguishable, those findings for sustainable technologies, changing environ- contiguous area of trees reason- forestry and biodiversity. ments and shifting social and eco- ably similar in age, composition, • Section 4, “Work in Progress,” nomic values. and structure. outlines NCSSF projects Biological diversity refers to •A patch is a relatively uniform currently underway, including the variety and abundance of all area of vegetation that differs work that expands upon new life forms in a place—plants, ani- from its surroundings. knowledge generated through the earliest NCSSF research The NCSSF website at www.ncssf.org contains more detailed efforts. information, including: summaries of projects in plain English, technical project reports for completed NCSSF projects, and abstracts of ongoing projects. The web site also contains summaries of past NCSSF sponsored meetings and workshops, a calendar of events, and an online version of this report.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 9 CONTEXT

2 Advancing Science for Sustainable Forestry hen they began their work, the Commission members found an abundance of scientifically sound research on biodiversity and sustainable forestry. Thousands of individual studies by government, academic, industrial, and environmental organization researchers yield a constant flow of bits and pieces of information. The problem is that no well established institu- tional processes exist to assemble this diverse information into a coherent picture and translate the results into useful knowledge and tools for practitioners, managers, and policy makers. The Commission addresses this problem by establishing consen- Wsus on the science and its implications as a credible independent group of respected individuals with a broad range of expertise and stakeholder perspectives. The Commission’s approach is first to synthesize and draw upon the extensive research that has already been done. Then they work together to identify gaps in the collective results of that work and collaboratively define research and other activities to fill the most important ones with new knowledge that will improve the scientific basis for practice, management, and policy. The Commission has summarized what it has learned in this report and is using other communication chan- nels to share the consensus that its members have developed. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

10 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Forests in Context U.S. forests now cover roughly forest conversion to agricultural, the same amount of land as they urban, suburban, and industrial The area of the earth’s surface did in 1920—749 million acres, uses. Most of the conversion covered by forest—defined as 10% or about one-third of the nation’s occurred between 1860 and 1920 or greater land cover in trees—was land area. Most North American (Williams 1989, Perlin 1991, estimated to be about 9.6 billion forestlands have been impacted by MacCleery 1992, FAO 2002, acres in 2000 (UN FAO 2003). human activity for thousands of USDA Forest Service 2003). The Over time, forestland has been lost years. Native Americans cleared total forested area of the United principally through the conversion agricultural plots and burned States has been relatively stable of forests to agricultural, residen- forests to provide openings and since 1920, although changes are tial, commercial, and industrial wildlife habitat. European settlers still occurring in individual states. land uses that came with human cleared large forested areas, for U.S. public and private lands are population and economic growth. agriculture in the seventeenth to often intermixed in a patchwork of Net forest loss appears to have nineteenth centuries, but as U.S. ownerships and different land uses. stopped in developed nations, agriculture moved westward, Most publicly owned forestland is mostly in the temperate zones, abandoned farm lands in the in the West, while most privately while it continues in developing, Northeast were widely reforested owned forestland is in the East mostly tropical countries. in the twentieth century. (Figure 3). Approximately 10 In developed nations, forest Past land uses have greatly million non-industrial private management and harvesting of influenced current forest condi- landowners hold about 58% of trees for various wood products tions, and some have left long- the nation’s forestland. These are well into a major transition lasting impacts on the landscape. privately owned lands not only similar to the changes that agricul- Over the past 400 years, U.S. are the largest area of forest own- ture has experienced over the past forests have declined in area by at ership in the United States; they several centuries. Until the late least one-third, and the ecological also comprise the nation’s largest twentieth century, most industrial quality of what remains has often area of the most biologically wood came either from forests changed. As with global forests, productive forestland (USDA that were being harvested for the most of these losses resulted from Forest Service 2004). first time or ones that had naturally grown back following earlier harvesting or fires. The world now Figure 3 gets approximately 33% of its U.S. Forest Ownership industrial wood from planted Millions of Acres forests and is expected to obtain 300 Public around 80% or more of its wood Private Industry from such forests by 2050 (Sedjo 250 and Botkin 1997, Victor and Ausubel 2000, World Wildlife 200 Fund 2001). It appears that planted forests can meet future wood demand. 150 The transition from obtaining forest products from extensive 100 natural forests to producing them from smaller, intensively managed 50 planted forests will have significant implications for sustainable 0 forestry and biodiversity West East conservation. Source: USDA Forest Service 2004

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 11 About two-thirds of the forested As the demand for wood has and include a diversity of habitat land in the U.S., or 504 million grown, so has the demand for components—have been shown acres, is classified as commercial virtually every other forest benefit, to have an important role in forestland, or timberland. primarily water. Forests in the sustaining certain wildlife and fish Repeated growing and harvesting United States are commonly such as grizzly bears and salmon. of trees for wood or wood-based the headwaters for major river At the other end of the contin- products is economically feasible systems. High water quality and uum of forest purposes are wood on commercial forestlands. About normal flow patterns have been production forests—plantations that 72% of these commercial forest- reasons for protecting forests in are managed primarily for indus- lands are in the East. Some 52 the United States since the late trial wood. These forests tend to million acres of U.S. forests are 1800s (Adirondack Forest Preserve have a broad distribution of age reserved or dedicated for non- 1885, Organic Administration classes, including significant early timber uses as parks, refuges, or Act of 1897). More recently, recre- successional stages, which reflect wilderness areas managed by a ational uses of forests, the role planned disturbance by harvesting variety of public agencies. The of forests in storing atmospheric at regular intervals. Forest planta- U.S. Department of Agriculture carbon, and the conservation of tion biodiversity is often aug- (USDA) Forest Service manages biodiversity have become highly mented by retaining biological 19% of the nation’s forestland, the valued forest benefits. legacies such as snags, large live forest industry owns 13%, and trees, downed woody material, other public agencies own 10% The Forest Continuum streamside management zones, (USDA Forest Service 2001). and small, scattered conservation Growing demand for wood and Forests provide benefits that are plots as miniature reserves. the economics of wood production based on the management goals Multi-resource forests where are encouraging more intensive for each forest as well as its natural no single purpose dominates lie management of the most produc- potential. The role of biodiversity between the reserves and wood tive forestlands. As noted earlier, in sustainable forests and the con- production forests. The majority individuals own about 58% of tribution of each kind of forest to of America’s forests are multi- U.S. forests and private forest overall biodiversity conservation resource. Urban forests are a industry owns another 13%. vary across a broad continuum special and growing type of Together, those forests provide of forest purposes. multi-resource forest. U.S. urban most of the wood that the nation At one end of this continuum areas have doubled in size over the uses and exports, and they are now are traditional reserves—often large past 20 to 25 years, and 28% of almost entirely second-, third- or contiguous areas protected from the nation’s forests are in counties fourth-growth forests, some development and focused on with urban populations greater reconverted from agriculture. preserving native species, “wild” than 20,000. As urbanization This creates opportunities ecosystems, and natural processes. spreads into less developed rural and challenges for integrating Reserved forestlands, including areas, a growing percentage of biodiversity conservation into state and federal parks and wilder- the nation’s natural resources sustainable forestry. There are ness areas, have doubled since will become part of urban forest opportunities to enhance bio- 1953 and now comprise 7% of ecosystems (Dwyer et al, 2000). diversity in intensively managed all U.S. forests. However, some Multi-resource forests, including forests, e.g., by incorporating regions don’t have appropriate urban forests, are the next frontier small reserves and other conserva- lands and/or conditions for large in overall biodiversity conservation measures, and to de-empha- reserves, and the scientific and tion. size wood production on lands conservation communities now Fortunately, the existence that are better suited for other recognize that reserves are neces- of forests across this continuum purposes. The challenge is to sary but not sufficient to maintain tends to increase biodiversity of achieve sustainable mixtures of biodiversity in its fullest dimen- all plants and animals. Conditions forest uses and management sions. For example, entire eco- within specific parts of it are very incentives at scales ranging from regions—very large geographic favorable for some species, and the a single ownership to a large areas that usually cross ownerships survival of some species might be region.

12 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry threatened without the entire in New Hampshire acquired in The Value of Biodiversity continuum. This biodiversity is 2003 from International Paper reflected at the landscape level but Company, have explicit biodiver- Conserving and sustaining biodiversity is important for not necessarily at the individual sity goals. While similar opportu- many reasons, including but forest level. nities still exist, resources are not not limited to: always available to acquire and Changing Forest Ownerships establish additional conservation 1. Biodiversity supports the easements at this scale. functioning of the ecological According to the 2002 USDA America’s mix of forestland systems upon which humans depend, provides genetic Forest Service National Woodland ownerships requires us to achieve material for new agricultural Owner Survey, more than 10 mil- biodiversity across diverse land- and silvicultural crops, and lion people own 276 million acres scapes rather than relying solely provides resilience necessary of forestland in the United States on large public reserves. for ecosystems to withstand for non-industrial purposes. About Comprehensive biodiversity climatic changes, disease and 4 million of those owners hold less conservation must appeal to pest out-breaks, and other than 10 acres that are essentially private-sector forestland managers. environmental stresses extended home sites. Another 4 They aren’t likely to dedicate large (Keystone Center 1991). million of those owners hold 220 parts of their ownerships specifi- 2. Nearly half the world’s million acres in parcels of 10 to cally to biodiversity, but they may medicines are derived from 1,000 acres. be willing to incorporate small living plants or animals, The average tenure of family reserves and some biodiversity and the potential exists to forest ownerships is 10 to 15 years. values into their overall goals. develop additional pharma- Trends suggest over the next two The conversion and fragmenta- ceutical products as new decades, the number of family tion of private forests will continue species are screened forest owners will increase to to challenge policy makers and (Keystone Center 1991). 12 million, but the total amount forest managers who are working 3. Biodiversity conservation of forest acreage will remain the to maintain biodiversity. This is makes good economic sense. same. This large-scale turnover especially important in regions Humans are dependent on of forest ownership is leading to where private lands dominate, natural resources for both increasing conversion of forests at such as the eastern United States. commodities such as forage the urban-rural interface to other for livestock and lumber for uses and increasing fragmentation Forestry and Sustainability homes and for ecological of the remaining forests. services such as flood control, waste detoxification, and At the same time, economic The greatest threat to forest creation of soil (Brussard forces are triggering change in the sustainability and biodiversity is 1994). forest products industry. Pension conversion of forests to other land funds, investment trusts, and uses, which often results when 4. Many people assign timber investment management markets undervalue natural sys- intrinsic value to biodiversity organizations (TIMOs) are buying tems and populations. Traditional because of ethical concerns or personal interests and large amounts of industrial forest management, often called affections. Through actions timberland. Some of this forest- sustained-yield forestry, has sought such as contributions to land is being converted to other to provide forest values, uses, conservation organizations uses, such as large home sites. In products, and services such as and ecotourism, these general, each transaction further wood, water, and wildlife for soci- concerns, interests and fragments ownership. ety and landowners. It has focused affections translate directly Some large private forests are on large plants and animals and on to economic value. being identified and managed to recreation—trees for wood prod- protect their significant cultural ucts, birds and mammals for hunt- and biodiversity values. Large ing, fish for catching, and woods easements, such as 170,000 acres for hiking and camping.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 13 People increasingly understand composition at the stand, water- measures that provide information that forest values extend beyond shed, and/or landscape scales, about the status of as many these traditional resources and also assessed through the unmeasured biodiversity elements they expect more. Forest managers selected indicators as possible—to represent major in turn seek policies, plans, and •managing forests to maintain biodiversity values in a particular practices to sustain a more diverse and enhance the biodiversity area. array of forest benefits. values identified above, includ- Many Federal and state agencies Sustainability has three ing establishing “reserves” in the United States have used the essential, interacting components: at appropriate geographic Montreal Process Criteria and (1) economic, (2) environmental, scales for species that can’t Indicators (C&I), an international and (3) social. The typical defini- be accommodated without guide for evaluating progress in tion of sustainable forestry— such special provisions achieving sustainable forests at meeting the needs of today’s •monitoring and evaluating indi- state and national scales. The people without compromising the cators and making appropriate C&Is are applicable to large needs of future generations—is adjustments in management. regions, across multi-owner land- derived from a set of non-binding scapes of Federal, state and private “forest principles” developed This broader concept of sustain- lands, but they are poorly suited at the 1992 United Nations ability needs a broader foundation to single ownerships or smaller Conference on Environment of science and practice than the geographic scales. An objective and Development (UNCED). one that has supported sustained- of NCSSF is to provide tools for Over the past 10 to 15 years, yield forestry since the 1950s. developing criteria and indicators a more comprehensive approach Efforts to maintain biodiversity at multiple scales. to biodiversity has been integrated and sustainability are driven by One challenge in implementing into sustainable forestry. Central such things as federal water and sustainable forestry across owner- features of this approach include: endangered species laws, state ships and regions is that there is • identifying forest values to be forest practice acts and regula- no national definition or standard sustained in the place(s) under tions, forester licensing and approach, and the forest certifica- consideration certification, and forest policies. tion and C&I systems do not • specifying indicators for the Sustainable forest management mesh well as one goes from one biological and ecological values certification encourages, docu- geographic scale or ownership to be sustained at various scales ments, and recognizes landowner to another. in the place(s)1 commitments to sustaining Indicators represent what • exploring the effects on biodi- biodiversity and other forest biodiversity means for any forest, versity of natural processes values. Major U.S. forest and they tell managers and others such as wildfire, invasive species, certification programs include what is to be sustained in those insects, diseases, and climate the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, forests. Because forests exist change in sustaining habitat the Forest Stewardship Council, over a continuum of capabilities, diversity, productivity, and and the American Tree Farm conditions, and management resilience; these effects ideally System. purposes, forest biodiversity would be assessed through the indicators will also be a contin- selected indicators Biodiversity Indicators uum, with no single set appropri- • addressing the effects of human ate to all forests in all places. uses on biodiversity, i.e., native The biodiversity of any forest is species, forest structure, and very complex. Many aspects of this 1Indicators are also needed for other forest complexity are hidden and can’t values to be sustained but those are beyond the feasibly be observed, let alone scope of NCSSF Phase 1 work. understood. Thus it is essential to use indicators—a relatively few

14 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS

NCSSF is at the midpoint of its initial five-year 3 time frame. Although more than half of NCSSF initiatives are still in progress, some important patterns already are emerging. After almost three years of Commission deliberations informed by research results, we think it is important to share the most salient findings about sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation in this interim report. (The summaries and detailed reports for completed NCSSF- funded projects are available at: www.ncssf.org.) Given the broad audience for this Findings Report, some readers may find that individual findings challenge their conventional wisdom, while Nother readers may regard the same findings as common knowledge. The findings presented here represent key areas of Commission consensus at this stage. They are not comprehensive. Rather, they are focused on defining a baseline of current knowledge on management issues where science is most needed by decision makers. The NCSSF findings include four areas of sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation: • Stand-level and landscape patterns • Disturbance dynamics • Biodiversity indicators • Adaptive management

NOTE: The reference codes used in this document (i.e. NCSSF A3, NCSSF B1.2.) are keyed to Table A-I (pg. 46) in the Appendix which lists all the NCSSF projects and reports. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 15 AREA 1 The effectiveness of biodiversity conservation is largely determined by interactions between stand- and landscape-level patterns.

Finding 1A Biodiversity conservation requires knowledge and policies that cross landscape levels.

Landscapes are the mix of land- NCSSF Results: Landscape-level Reserves—areas set aside from cover types resulting from human examinations across ownerships extractive and intensive uses such activities together with natural are necessary to assess the effects as mining and residential develop- conditions and disturbance of forest management decisions ment—are necessary but insuffi- patterns. “Landscape” is a general on biodiversity. Patterns of forest cient for biodiversity conservation. term that may imply scales from structure arising from differing Efficient and effective conserva- small watersheds to regions. management objectives and appro- tion decisions require a landscape Working at a landscape scale often aches across the broader landscape view, accurate landscape-level means integrating actions across are a significant determinant of information, and knowledge about jurisdictional boundaries, requir- biodiversity and of the success how landscape patterns influence ing community collaboration. of conservation efforts. (NCSSF biodiversity and ecosystem func- The character of a landscape— A5W: Assessment of the Scientific tions. The shapes, sizes, and size, context, connectivity and Basis for Standards/Practices at arrangements of stands on a land- contrast among habitat patches the Stand, Management Unit, and scape are important. Work on or stands—both influences and Landscape Levels in the Western defining these relationships has is influenced by the elements of United States). just begun, but NCSSF project biodiversity within each individual findings address several related patch or stand. considerations, including the following: • The conservation goals that can be achieved on a given landscape depend upon its specific biological and physical characteristics. • Interactions among natural events and the cumulative actions and effects of many decision makers determine regional landscape patterns. One or many decision makers may determine patterns across smaller landscapes, depending upon the landscape in question and the size of ownerships. NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE PARKS NATIONAL

16 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Finding 1B Stand-level diversity is influenced by legacies.

• There are methods to quantify Legacies are conditions that link path of landscape succession and relationships between measures past and future systems. Many limit potential ecosystem restora- of forest structure and indica- land management practices rang- tion. For example, some modelers tors of biodiversity (Finding ing from timber harvest to agricul- predict that management to main- Area 3) to substitute for unmea- tural plowing have impacts that tain late-successional forests on sured or unknown biodiversity often are still apparent years after public lands and to reduce some elements. the activity has ceased. These early-successional stands on pri- “legacies” of past management vate lands could cause a decline in Landscape patterns within rela- may be beneficial or detrimental the proportion of mid-successional tively small areas may influence to long-term forest management forests in the Pacific Northwest some aspects of biodiversity. In the and biodiversity goals. Such lega- that could affect biodiversity Southeast, local patterns in forest cies sometimes play a crucial role (NCSSF A5W). type (areas 0.5 miles in radius or in ecosystem resilience—the abil- Historical changes in land use smaller) are good predictors of ity to recover from disturbance in New England, particularly bird species diversity. Patterns at without long-term loss of diversity since European settlement, have that scale can be measured by and functional integrity. Legacies affected the region’s biodiversity remote imagery, which means that at the stand scale include trees, significantly. Most of the affected bird diversity can be predicted logs, plant species that sprout from landscapes can be functionally without detailed stand-level infor- roots, and both living and nonliv- restored—made to accommodate mation (NCSSF A5E: Assessment of ing components of soil. An impor- species that were present at the the Scientific Basis for Standards/ tant aspect of sustainable forestry time of settlement. But precise Practices at the Stand, Management practice is identifying and manag- ecological conditions can’t be Unit, and Landscape Levels in the ing forest legacies. recreated with any assurance Eastern United States). This may because of uncertainty about not be true for less mobile organ- NCSSF Results: Retention of large, historical conditions as well as isms. mature trees on all forestlands irreversible changes such as soil Where spatial analysis can be (public and private) has a signifi- loss, invasive species, climate used to identify portions of the cant positive effect on the regional change, and urbanization. landscape that are crucial to con- abundance of several species (NCSSF B1.1). serving high-priority aspects of associated primarily with late- It is important to note that: biodiversity, it can reduce the cost successional forests in the Pacific •Legacies vary with disturbance of achieving biodiversity objectives Northwest. On the other hand, type, intensity, and frequency, (NCSSF A5W). management for early-success- resulting in varying biodiversity ional stages is appropriate where responses. species of biodiversity concern (e.g. •Variations in the timing and Kirtland's warbler) decline due to a nature of disturbance generate lack of early successional forests significant biodiversity across (NCSSF A5W). landscapes. • Spatial variability of disturbance Disturbances—conversion to and variation in post-distur- agriculture, intensive utilization bance patterns may also con- of wood, loss of topsoil— that tribute to biodiversity at the destroy or significantly alter stand level. natural legacies can change the

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 17 Finding 1C Biodiversity correlates to spatial variability in forest management.

Many structural features that are NCSSF Results: In the Southeast, Short-distance migrants and important to diversity are influ- bird species richness was positively species that prefer early succes- enced by common forestry prac- associated with diversity of habi- sional habitat were associated with tices, such as thinning. Various tats at many spatial scales. By some pine forests, and birds within these stand conditions favor different measures, pine forests were richest groups were relatively insensitive groups of species. Landscapes with in species, but some species and to forest age. However, in some a diversity of stand ages and types guilds were associated with hard- cases the number of species within are likely to have a diversity of wood forests. Because birds are one or both of these guilds animals, plants, and microbes. highly mobile, their responses to declined as the amount of forest However, because different species patterns in forest types across older than 80 years increased require different amounts of landscapes may not be good pre- within the local landscape. habitat, successful conservation dictors of how less mobile species, More amphibian and reptile requires quantifying the relation- such as amphibians, will respond. species were found in hardwood ship between landscape patterns (NCSSF A5E Assessment of the forests than in pine or pine- and the diversity of different Scientific Basis for Standards/ hardwood forests, but hardwood species groups. Practices at the Stand, Manage- forests often were on moist sites ment Unit, and Landscape Levels in or closer to water than other the Eastern United States). forest types. Stand age diversity at relatively small scales (within NCSSF A5E found that species 275 yards) was positively associ- richness within virtually every bird ated with greater richness for guild—a group of bird species both amphibians and reptiles. with similar ecological require- Stands with high basal area— ments—that was examined corre- a measure of tree density— lated positively with one or more supported more amphibian measures of local habitat diversity. species, while stands with low Researchers found that species basal area supported more that nest in the canopy or in cavi- reptile species. ties and year-round resident birds Overall, in habitat quality were strongly associated with models, the relationship between hardwood forests. Species richness richness of bird guilds and meas- within each of these groups corre- ures of landscape patterns address- lated negatively with the extent of ing landscape scale is not well forests less than 4 years old in the understood. Additional NCSSF immediate proximity (100 yards), research is furthering insights but was positively influenced by about multi-scale management the presence of some young across ownerships. forests when a larger (0.6 miles) spatial scale was considered.

18 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Finding 1D Forest fragmentation generally reduces biodiversity.

Forest fragmentation occurs when Forests can be temporarily frag- forest type. Populations in smaller parts of a contiguous forest are mented into smaller units by har- patches are at greater risk of altered or removed so that the vesting that changes the age extinction due to variability in parts that remain are increasingly classes and species composition of environmental conditions and isolated from each other. Forests the next forest. Visual considera- population levels. As remnant can become fragmented when land tions and some wildlife habitat patches of forest become smaller is converted to other uses such as goals have led to smaller, more and more isolated, adverse impacts agriculture, urban, residential, and numerous openings in forests that of fragmentation increase and are commercial development, or tracts may actually contribute to forest likely to be greatest for species that are simply too small to man- fragmentation. with limited dispersal ability age, causing the most severe Effects of forest fragmentation (NCSSF A7). However, short- impacts on adjoining forest areas. on biodiversity are often difficult lived patches in a dynamic land- to distinguish from the effects of scape that is continuously forested NCSSF Results: Fragmentation habitat loss and forest succession. but with age classes moving spa- increases the effects of deforesta- Moreover, fragmentation effects tially over time do not function in tion to the extent that a patchwork vary among landscape types and the same way as isolated islands of forest remnants has less habitat depend on the mix of species, spa- surrounded by water. Also, isolated value than one large patch of equal tial scales, and ecological forest fragments have some biodi- area. However, over the last processes. Landscape-scale meas- versity values that would disappear decade, the view of how fragmen- urements of fragmentation, such if they were converted to non-for- tation alters forest biodiversity has as edge density and the distance est uses. shifted toward recognizing that a between patches, have value as Local populations in remnant wide range of habitat quality general indicators of forest pat- patches of forest in fragmented changes take place in all compo- terns but are often poor predictors landscapes are strongly affected by nents of the fragmented land- of species richness and other the characteristics of surrounding scape. The new understanding measures of biodiversity in forest areas. It is important to study and moves away from viewing forest remnants. Specifically, habitat understand how fragmentation remnants as discrete habitat quality and thus biodiversity are alters flows of energy, matter, “islands” surrounded by inhos- affected not only by forest area but and species—including dispersal pitable areas and toward the view also by the arrangement of the and spread of non-native invasive that there are different degrees of forest and fragmenting factors species and diseases—across the fragmentation and that what is such as non-forested areas and modified landscape and thus suitable habitat for some species roads (NCSSF A7). affects forest succession, sediment is inhospitable for others. (NCSSF Although the effects of forest movement, nutrient cycling, A7: Identification of Biodiversity fragmentation are difficult to carbon sequestration, and other Research Needs Related to Forest measure, they are well established key community and ecosystem Fragmentation). in ecological theory and docu- processes (NCSSF A7). mented in many field studies. Larger patches of forest habitat generally support more species than smaller patches of the same

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 19 Implications of Area 1 Changes in land use history activities. A further complication is Findings for Sustainable influence biodiversity change. that the specifics of many land- Forestry Consider the land-use history of scape-level management strategies a given site and how historical can’t be generalized—what works Landscape-level information is land use patterns constrain biodi- in one area may not in another. necessary to use science fully in versity goals. Aerial photographs Social, policy, and land-manage- conservation efforts everywhere. made in the early 1940s of many ment mechanisms for meeting Landscape patterns in forest parts of the country provide a landscape-level goals are generally structure result from interaction useful starting point. For example, not established, although the between management practices on a former agricultural field on a Minnesota Sustainable Forest individual ownerships and natural steep slope may indicate low soil Resources Act of 1995, with a disturbances. Management prac- productivity because 90% of the Landscape Planning Component, tices on individual lands within a topsoil is gone, whereas consistent is a notable exception. region can affect regional biodi- forest cover can indicate a favor- NCSSF is currently funding versity significantly, either directly able site for endangered species several projects to help both by producing or retaining habitats (NCSSF B1.2). land managers and policy makers or indirectly by influencing the Government agencies and address this problem. Renewals of spread and severity of natural nongovernmental conservation Projects A5E and A5W are exam- disturbances. Human land use organizations often have databases ining new approaches to managing and other agents of change have on indicator species—species that forests at the landscape scale and significantly influenced diversity can provide insight into the across ownerships. A new project, on many landscapes, and many overall health of an ecosystem— NCSSF C2: Existing and Potential new elements also have significant that can inform decision making. Incentives for Practicing Sustainable biodiversity value. Participating in conservation Forestry on Non-Industrial Private planning efforts at local and Forestlands, focuses on non-indus- higher levels can help landowners trial private forests, an important understand relevant priority issues segment of forestland ownership. and conservation strategies for Project C2 is determining what their areas. Collaborating with incentives—cost-sharing for adjoining landowners or others stewardship practices, preferential can provide mutual benefits to tax-assessments, market incentives, landowners and other parties etc.—would encourage private within a given landscape. landowners to practice sustainable The problem with a top-down, forestry, which is necessary for “how should the world look biodiversity conservation to proportionally?” view of scientific succeed at the landscape level. findings is that a single manage- Another new project, NCSSF ment organization generally can’t C3: The Conservation Context of change the pattern of forest land- Forestry, addresses non-industrial scapes. Most landowners can’t private forestlands in the context control or even influence both of state conservation plan impacts. policy and ownership-level

20 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry AREA 2 Sustaining disturbance dynamics within appropriate ranges sustains biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Finding 2A The historical range of variation is a useful but limited concept for managing biodiversity.

For every landscape, natural dis- Because HRV has sustained biodi- ment approaches that integrate turbance processes have measura- versity over time, it is sometimes concepts of ecosystem responses ble patterns of frequency, intensity, recommended that managers to natural disturbances may and spatial scale. The pattern of emulate those fluctuations and achieve biodiversity goals. variability over time constitutes avoid exceeding historical (NCSSF A6: Evaluation of the the historical range of variation extremes. A more productive Role of Ecosystem Restoration on (HRV)—fluctuations in ecosystem approach is to understand how Biodiversity) behavior resulting from influences historical behavior shaped eco- Managing within HRV is rela- such as climate, fire, or flood. systems and to try to project that tively simple in systems that have When humans alter ecosystems behavior beyond any recent alter- not been fundamentally altered by beyond the historical range of ation into the future as a manage- changes in land use, disturbance variation, they risk fundamental ment target based on lessons of frequency, or species composition, change that can threaten biodiver- history, not a re-creation of his- human imposed infrastructure sity. As Pickett et al (1992) noted, tory. A natural disturbance regime such as highways and dams, or “Nature has a range of ways to be, for an area comprises all of the climate change. Where extinc- but there is a limit to those ways, various disturbances that affect it tions, species introductions, or and therefore human changes as well as their intensities and altered disturbance regimes have must be within those limits.” frequencies. When natural fundamentally changed the sys- disturbance regimes are absent or tem, management-induced or NCSSF Results: Many components altered, restoration and manage- natural disturbances may produce of biodiversity are affected by the complexity of forest structure and landscape diversity in relation to the disturbance regimes and history of a particular area (NCSSF A7). Management that sustains this complexity within its historical bounds may also sustain historical biodiversity; however, pre-settlement conditions are often not a realistic management goal because the landscape condition has been changed by human-caused disturbance. Attempting to restore earlier landscapes may not lead to resilience in the face of new forces, such as climate change, mega fires, exotic species invasions, or pollution (NCSSF B1.3). COPYRIGHT JOHN MCCOLGAN, ALASKA FOREST SERVICE. IMAGE COURTESY: AGI IMAGEBANK

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 21 Finding 2B Fire significantly influences patterns of biodiversity within and among forest ecosystems. novel and undesirable effects such A fire regime comprises the limit the number of days per year as uncharacteristically severe fire characteristics of fire in a given in which prescribed fire can be or species invasions. Sustaining ecosystem, such as the frequency, used, reducing the opportunity for historical dynamics into the future predictability, intensity, and risk-reduction fires and artificially can be further complicated by cli- seasonality of fire. Several factors constraining replication of historic mate change and invasive species. have altered fire regimes in fire levels. At regional scales, changes forested ecosystems over the past The impacts of changes in have been profound and pervasive century, including land-use his- fire patterns depend on the past nearly everywhere, and managing tory, landscape fragmentation, fire frequency and intensity of fire ecosystems to function within suppression, and changes in behavior in a given ecosystem. their historical bounds is neither human access and ignition sources. Eliminating fire in areas that expe- possible nor desirable. Still, The size and severity of recent rience frequent, low-intensity fires lessons of history, such as the fires in the dry forests of the U.S. can result in in-growth of shade- importance of maintaining forest West were historically unprece- tolerant shrubs and trees and a complexity, can be applied to dented, a result of 50 years of loss of herb cover and diversity. maintain biodiversity. For exam- effective fire suppression, high fuel In other areas, absence of mixed- ple, in one NCSSF-sponsored amounts, and a warming climate. severity fires leads to uniform land- project, thinning younger conifer scapes at intermediate spatial scales stands in the Pacific Northwest NCSSF Results: Failure to reduce (up to 0.6 miles); the loss of fuel benefited at least one bird species the risk of extreme fire behavior variability results in less variability (NCSSF A5W). outside the historical range of in future fire behavior. Areas that Managers can adhere too variation can significantly affect typically experience high-severity strictly to the HRV without biodiversity through changes in fires or those with long return considering significant changes landscape patterns and other eco- times suffer effects of fire exclusion that result from climate change, logical processes (NCSSF R3: Fire, mostly at very large spatial scale species invasions, and other Forest Health and Biodiversity— with changes in patch size, shape, pressures. The lessons of history Second Annual NCSSF Symposium). density, and distribution. should be combined with knowl- The biodiversity consequences edge of expected ecosystem behav- Modeling by Perry et al (2004) of altered fire regimes include less ior under likely future scenarios showed that susceptibility to variability in landscapes, loss of to identify a “future range of crown fires in dry forests of cen- fire-dependent species such as variation” (FRV) that will sustain tral Oregon varied widely at the the Kirtland’s Warbler and Red biodiversity in the face of ongoing landscape level. In most modeled Cockaded Woodpecker, and the environmental change. cases, controlled underburns, introduction of invasive species. or a combination of controlled Without fire, the natural succes- underburns with light to moderate sion of vegetation in some areas thinning of smaller trees, could ultimately eliminates conditions significantly reduce risk. Field needed to sustain threatened or research done in Central Oregon endangered species or, as in recent by Fitzgerald (2003) indicates that years, creates conditions for fire moderate to heavy thinning of to operate well outside its natural understory trees and reduction regime for the forest where it in surface fuels is required to occurs. Better scientific knowledge change fire behavior significantly. about the role of fire in maintain- However, human development in ing biodiversity in forests and high-risk areas has greatly dimin- related ecosystems will be crucial ished fire management options. to formulating appropriate Air-quality standards can severely policies.

22 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Finding 2C An interdisciplinary scientific approach is necessary to address invasive species.

Non-native invasive species play a NCSSF Results: The effects of Each strategy depends on the significant role in redistributing non-native species invasions in actions of individuals and species and altering ecosystems. U.S. forests are lasting and cumula- institutions and the availability For example, a non-native fungus tive, threatening to undermine of appropriate knowledge and introduced in the last century the foundation of sustainability. tools (Figure 4). NCSSF’s priori- caused the chestnut blight that Three complementary strategies ties are to improve the underlying forever changed the Appalachian are essential to counter invasives: scientific concepts and technolo- forest ecosystem by effectively (1) prevention; (2) detection and gies, addressing issues across eliminating its dominant tree early intervention to eliminate sectors and at various geographic species. Increasingly species inva- invaders that elude prevention; scales by identifying key science sions threaten sustainable forests and (3) long-term management of needs to reduce the threat of inva- and biodiversity in the United well-established invasive species. sive species to sustainable forests. States and worldwide (Table 1). New scientific approaches and By killing and damaging Non-native invasive species also applications are needed to improve dominant tree species, invasive are altering ecosystems by elimi- actions in each area (NCSSF A1: pathogens and insects cause cas- nating native vegetation or alter- Synthesis of the Existing Science cading changes in the function and ing ecosystem function (e.g. the Relating Forest Management value of forest ecosystems. They effects of salt cedar on hydrology Practices to the Spread of Forest also significantly modify forest in the Southwestern United Diseases and Exotic Invasive ecosystem processes by altering States). Weeds). fire and hydrological regimes and food-web dynamics.

Figure 4 Strategies for reducing invasive species impacts on sustainable forests (NCSSF A1)

Source of Origin Transit New Infestation Spread Increase and Impacts

1. Prevention Set international Minimize high risk policies that optimally pathways & species Undertake preventative forest management balance trade with transfers for systems at risk minimizing high risk Minimize high risk pathways & species pathways & species transfers transfers

2. Detection and Early Intervention Detect, identify, & eradicate populations of high risk species

3. Long-term Implement large- and long-term control Management programs targeting individual high risk species and systems at risk of invasion by these species Manage forests with multiple invasive species to minimize overall impacts of invaders on ecosystem management goals

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 23 Table 1 Examples of Non-Native Invasive Species Significant to U.S. Forests

First U.S. Species Detection Ongoing and Possible Impacts Nun moth (Lymantria monacha)1, 2 None Could cause cumulative 20-year timber losses as high as $2.5 billion if established in 3 cities. Most damaging forest pest in Europe. Sirex woodwasp (Sirex noctilio)1 None Could cause cumulative 20-year timber losses of $760 million if established in 3 cities. Emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) 2002 In MI, OH, and MD. Could cause elimination of ash as a street, shade, and forest tree nationwide at an estimated cost of $282 billion. Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorum)7 1994 In CA and OR and spreading rapidly. Has been detected in diseased nursery stock shipped from CA to 6 states. Could devastate oak forests nationwide. Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi)1 1930 Occurs in most states. Has killed more than 60% of elms in urban settings. A more virulent U.S. strain evolved and has caused significant impacts in Europe. Hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae)2, 9 1920’s Currently in more than 4 states. Contributing to decline of eastern and Carolina hemlocks. Alters bird communities where it kills eastern hemlock. Balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae)2 1908 Attacks true fir species. Caused dramatic declines in Fraser fir in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, resulting in understory and wildlife changes. Chestnut blight (Dryphonectria parasitica)1 1904 or Eliminated American chestnut from eastern deciduous forests. earlier Annual lost timber value for 3 states of $683.9 million (1999 dollars). Caused declines in chestnut-dependant wildlife and erosion where lost trees have not been replaced. White pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola)3, 4, 5 Late 1800’s to Throughout range of eastern white pine and in 6 western early 1900’s states. Lost economic value. Killing pines in western high elevation ecosystems, eliminating wildlife forage; affecting soil stability, snowmelt regulation, and succession. European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar)1 1869 In 19 states, spot infests 12 more. Annually defoliates millions of northeastern and Midwestern forested acres; suppression costs tens of millions. Record losses in 1981: 13 million acres defoliated; $3.9 billion (1998 dollars) in losses. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)6, 8 Early to In 37 states. Invades forest edges and disturbed areas. Suppresses mid-1800’s native plants, topples trees, alters songbird populations by changing forest structure.

References: 1APHIS, 2000; 2Campbell and Schlarbaum, 2002; 3Ciesla and Coulston, 2002; 4Krakowski et al., 2003; 5Leibhold et al., 1995; 6NRCS, undated; 7PCA, undated; 8TNC, undated; 9Tingley et al., 2002

24 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Finding 2D Variation in disturbance dynamics is often connected to human activities and changes in climate.

Monetary losses of U.S. forest Forest ecosystems are constantly changing. The speed and direction products due to invasive species of that change have been and continue to be influenced by changes in may be more than $2 billion annu- human activities and variations in climate occurring over years, decades, ally. New invasions continue, centuries, and millennia. These patterns are further complicated by spurred by changes in ecosystems interactions among human actions and climate. and increased species mobility. The sudden oak death pathogen NCSSF Results: Climatic changes over the past 1400 years in Northern or emerald ash borer could have Arizona were inferred from tree rings. Researchers identified 58 distinct profound ecological and economic climatic periods—i.e., warm and dry versus cool and wet. These periods impacts; U.S. forests have experi- were often related to changes in human activities and land use that, enced neither the full number of together, influenced the species composition of forests. For example, the possible invasions nor the full “Great Drought” from 1276-1299 was linked to regional-scale movements effects of already established of prehistoric human populations. These migrations together with changes invaders. Economic globalization in climate influenced where and how forests were being used (NCSSF B1.3: and increasing human access, Land Use History Impacts on Biodiversity—Implications for Management fragmentation, disturbance, Strategies in the Western U.S.). and climate change increase opportunities for invasive species to become established in U.S. forest ecosystems (NCSSF A1).

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 25 Implications of Area 2 be accurately described. For Forest fires outside the HRV Findings for Sustainable example, most of the mixed- will result from both human inter- Forestry species forests of Northern New ventions, such as exclusion of fire England include a narrow range of from fire-dependent forests, and Departures from the historical tree ages. Management can create variations caused by combinations range of variation (HRV) often a greater range of ages and thus of natural and human influences have adverse consequences for more diverse forests. However, such as changing climate condi- biodiversity. HRV can be a useful the upper limit of forest age will tions. Changing fire regimes will guide for management, and it may be dictated simply by the passage include more frequent extreme even help build social acceptability of time. This becomes a limit on fires. when defining new biodiversity the FRV. The effects of fuel reduction conservation goals. However, In these forests, it will be a long treatments on biodiversity are HRV isn’t necessarily the appro- time before there is a significant poorly understood, particularly priate goal in the face of changes area of late successional or “old in mixed-severity fire regimes. in climate and species composition growth” forests. However, some NCSSF is addressing this chal- that change the nature of ecosys- structural characteristics of old lenge by sponsoring a three-part tem behavior and response to dis- growth can be accelerated. FRV project in fire-prone regions of the turbance. At the very least, there can be manipulated by thinning Western United States, NCSSF must be a mechanism to update forests to encourage the remaining C4: Biodiversity Implications of and adapt the HRV concept with trees to reach old growth size Post-Fire Recovery Strategies. It new information about such fac- sooner. In this instance, the future will assess the impacts of post-fire tors as climate change and invasive can be both predicted and created. treatments on immediate ecosys- species to create a “future range Similarly, the rate at which wind, tem recovery and the long-term of variation” concept or FRV. fire, insects, disease or harvest cre- impacts on subsequent fire severity Predicting the future range of ate young forests will limit FRV by comparing post-fire treatments variation (FRV) is difficult, but on the other end of the age spec- in areas that have recently been many possible forest futures can trum. burned and areas that received some type of post-fire treatment after an older fire and then were burned again. In a world where non-native, invasive species are jumping bio-geographic barriers, the usual approaches to ecosystem restoration won’t work. We must move beyond the case-study approach to an interdisciplinary science, and emphasize pathways and prevention, combined with early detection and rapid eradication of emerging populations of invasives (Figure 5). INSTITUTE FOR CULTURE AND ECOLOGY, KATHRYN LYNCH AND ERIC JONES LYNCH KATHRYN AND ECOLOGY, INSTITUTE FOR CULTURE

26 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry A new project, NCSSF C7 thinning or shifting forest struc- of pollution, invasive species, habi- Understanding How Forest ture alone may not be enough tat loss and fragmentation, climate Management Practices Affect Species to regenerate species richness; change, and other new threats can Invasions and Impacts, will synthe- drought and arrested ecological be more effective than attempting size what has been learned from processes will slow recovery. to return to past forest structure. forest management for invasive Future impacts on biodiversity Management practices that species and highlight effective of some land uses can’t be pre- address ecosystem processes and measures for combating harmful dicted. Restoration goals and composition in addition to struc- impacts of invasive species. strategies must consider short- ture will preserve and enhance Specific relationships between and long-term climate-change resilience more effectively than land-use history and many forecasts and anticipated out- those that address structure alone. elements of biodiversity are comes. A key difference for biodi- Attempting to conserve biological poorly understood in most versity conservation in modern soil crust integrity, native biodiver- regions, although ongoing NCSSF times is that some populations of sity, and endemic species, as well research is designed to increase plants and animals can no longer as a diverse pattern of habitats can knowledge of these areas. NCSSF- move in response to climate strengthen resilience. funded research has consistently change because of man made Management plans that consider shown the value of science of physical barriers and other land non-timber forest products, place—different systems are differ- uses. Given the uncertainties traditional use, and other forest ent in many ways. Constructing a about these interactions, adaptive products and values can help frame of reference for a given site management will be critically build a community of stewards requires knowing the site’s unique important. and stakeholders who can foster composition from its fire history, In the context of other goals, more productive management evidence from ecology, archeology, managing forests and woodlands partnerships (NCSSF B1.3). and other sources. For example, for ecosystem resilience in the face

Figure 5 The Need for Interdisciplinary Invasives Science (NCSSF A1)

DRIVERS IMPACTS SOLUTIONS • International trade • Declines in native species Preventative & Responsive: • Interstate transport • Disruption of ecosystem • New institutions and commerce processes • International policies • Plant introductions for plantation • Loss of forest economic value • Domestic policies forestry, re-vegetation, gardens • Loss of non-market services • Detection & monitoring and landscaping (e.g., carbon sequestration) • Management actions • Forest management practices • Reduced social value • Industry choices • Land use change Climate change (e.g. spiritual)

• Economics • Ecological Science • Economics • Social Sciences • Economics • Policy Analysis • Policy Analysis • Social Science • Decision Sciences • Biological Sciences • Informatics

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 27 AREA 3 Biodiversity indicators must be matched to land-use objectives.

Finding 3A Biodiversity is too broad a concept and too variable across forest types to be represented by a universal set of indicators.

No matter how far science information about the status of as NCSSF Results: Forest stakehold- advances understanding of many unmeasured biodiversity ers and decision makers need to sustainable forestry, the only way elements as possible. We will partition biodiversity into discrete to monitor the status of biodiver- never have the ability to track components, such as aquatic/ripar- sity is through indicators—a rela- “life in all its forms.” ian values, late-successional values, tively few measures that provide early-successional values, game species values, snag and down wood values, or other specific components that are to be sustained. Only when this level of specificity is reached about values to be sustained by a specific forest or landscape can informative indicators be selected (NCSSF A8: Identification of Biodiversity Indicators to Apply to Sustainable Forestry).

In any forest type, at any scale, indicators are tools for assessing success or failure at maintaining biodiversity. Therefore, indicators must be chosen carefully. This hasn’t always happened in sustainable forestry. But through the first and second phases of the A8 project, NCSSF has fostered the development and refinement of a tool to help select biodiversity indicators. USDA FOREST SERVICE

28 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Finding 3B Finding 3C Clear objectives and processes are crucial to selecting A logically structured appropriate sets of indicators. process is needed for selecting indicators. Various policy initiatives have tors or good science, but rather the developed biodiversity indicator lack of (1) clearly articulated man- Based on NCSSF survey research, systems, beginning with the 1992 agement objectives for the values decision makers said they were Montreal Process Criteria and to be sustained and (2) a clear constrained in using indicators due Indicators. Since then, sustainable process for selecting indicators to to a lack of: forest management certification reflect specific values and objec- • existing data to calculate systems such as—the Forest tives. Therefore, although stake- indicators Stewardship Council, Sustainable holders may repeatedly select • information about how to select Forestry Initiative, Canadian certain indicators for different situ- indicators Standards Association, American ations (e.g., forest types, scales of • information about how to use Tree Farm System, Green Tag— application), a universal “core set” indicators have emerged with their own sets isn't useful (NCSSF A8). •credible indicators of biodiversity performance meas- •money (cost was listed first as ures and indicators. In 2002, the NCSSF A8 research suggests that the most constraining factor). Heinz Center for Science, any tendency within laws, regula- Economics, and the Environment tions, or certification systems to NCSSF Results: The reliability released the State of the Nation’s rely on only a few “core” indica- of identified measures is frequently Ecosystems report with a peer- tors across large forests or land- questioned, at least in part reviewed, agreed upon small set of scapes can produce significant because selection of indicators national-scale indicators that is distortions or unintended conse- often has lacked transparency, updated periodically. NCSSF A8 quences—the indicators may not social inclusiveness, and/or a logi- identified more than 2,000 be efficient or reflect the values or cal structured process for selecting biodiversity indicators currently in conditions to be sustained. Other indicators that are locally appropri- use or proposed by scientists. NCSSF research shows that no ate and reflect values to be single measure is adequate to sustained (NCSSF A8). NCSSF Results: The bottleneck in measure biodiversity in sustainable effective selection and use of indi- forestry; multiple measures will be Many forest managers and policy cators is not a lack of good indica- necessary (NCSSF A5W, A5E). makers have been frustrated by the lack of a logical, stepwise, trans- parent process for selecting indicators. This frustration can be addressed by: • subdividing biodiversity into more separate, workable units • selecting indicators with a structured process so that their meaning can be interpreted by stakeholders and used by managers in forest decision making. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 29 Finding 3D An effective set of indicators includes three different types that cover five separate functions.

Based on a new framework of INSTITUTE FOR CULTURE AND ECOLOGY, ERIC JONES AND KATHRYN LYNCH evaluation criteria, NCSSF-funded research identified many good biodiversity indicators for sustainable Forest stakeholders must partici- • identifying indicator thresholds forestry—and many poor ones. pate in the early stages of indicator (i.e., critical levels below which selection to identify biodiversity a biodiversity value is compro- NCSSF Results: Informative biodi- values that interest and concern mised). versity indicators for any single them. Scientists and forest biodiversity value should measure managers can then help select A large gap remains between (NCSSF A8): indicators that track the societal researchers who study forest bio- • current condition of the biodiver- values most cost-effectively. A diversity indicators and decision sity value (a condition indicator) follow-up project sponsored by makers and users. This gap results • the level of one or more pres- NCSSF is developing and testing from a lack of communication and sures affecting the value (a pres- a new indicator selection process information flow. Most decision sure indicator) that meets these needs. Some key makers face substantial informa- • the level of policy response being science priorities for biodiversity tion barriers in using biodiversity taken to reduce pressure (a policy indicators are: indicators. Researchers often are response indicator). • testing the effectiveness of only weakly influenced by decision policy response indicators makers and are not meeting their Each candidate indicator should that measure the level of policy information or applications needs be evaluated for: response being taken to reduce (NCSSF A8). Most decision mak- • ecological breadth—number pressure on a biodiversity value ers do not use peer-reviewed of other ecosystem components •improving species-habitat asso- science journals as a primary correlated to the indicator ciations for “coarse-filter” indi- source of information. Although • practicality—feasibility of cators that measure broad researchers were key sources of measuring the indicator, indicators of ecosystem health forest biodiversity information including cost, time, and skill • extracting useful indicators from for some decision makers, decision • relevance—degree to which the existing state, regional, and makers did not influence most indicator responds to the stress national databases researchers’ selection of research from a particular influence; e.g., • conducting critical analysis topics. Conversely, researchers timber harvesting as opposed to to determine the most at-risk often feel their work is not under- air pollution, or vice versa species, structures, and stood and used effectively by • scientific merit—extent to processes in individual forest decision makers. which science supports the systems indicator • usability— the ability of stakeholders to use the indicator to make decisions.

30 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Ta ble 2 lists indicators that exem- applicable indicators based on soil • various measures of standing plify these five characteristics. biology and chemistry. and fallen dead wood, amount They can be used to thoroughly In NCSSF’s review of existing of forest, and age classes evaluate effective and informative indicators, 47 received high scores •tree size indicators for use. Indicators of for scientific merit, ecological • harvest rate in managed forest habitat quality are often surrogates breadth, and practicality. These settings. for direct measures of biodiversity. included some commonly used Some indicators will be more indicators such as: These are predominantly condi- generally applicable and will have • the percent of forest in different tion indicators. Pressure and direct links to biodiversity. Others forest types policy indicators would also be will be less direct. For example, • the percent of forest in different required to create an effective ongoing NCSSF research shows age classes (including late- mix for even the broadest set of great promise for new, widely successional and old-growth biodiversity objectives. classes where they would naturally occur).

Table 2 Examples of Effective Indicators Identified by Functional Category (NCSSF A8)

Top-Ranked Indicators Top-Ranked Indicators Top-Ranked Indicators Top-Ranked Indicators Top-Ranked Indicators for Scientific Merit for Utility for Practicality for Relevance for Ecological Breadth (Scientific basis (An indicator’s level of (Ease of measuring an (Responsiveness to (Degree with which and support for an usefulness for decision indicator) stressors in a decision an indicator indicates indicator) makers) making or policy area) something about the entire ecological system) Water cycle 3 Forest age 2.4 Soil layers 2.67 Aquatic and 3 Aquatic fine 3 riparian water woody debris Tree harvesting 2.87 Forest type 2.36 Epiphytes 2.6 quality forestry levels composition Aquatic logs 3 Late-successional 2.6 BMPs LWD Hydrology 2.75 Aquatic and 2.18 species dominance Biodiversity 3 riparian water Disturbance 3 Logging road 2.75 Bird indicator 2.5 terrestrial quality forestry regimes indices coverage species forestry BMPs BMPs Ecosystem 3 Disturbance- 2.62 Bird indices of 2.5 Canopy structure 3 Biodiversity 2.18 biomass related bird biotic integrity terrestrial Cavity nesting 3 species Habitat supply 3 forestry BMPs Cavity nesting 2.5 bird species Habitat supply 2.62 bird species Logging road 3 Habitat supply 2.18 Disturbance 3 coverage Stand age 2.62 Disturbance- 2.5 regimes indices Snags 2.18 distribution related bird Stream canopy 3 Ecosystem 3 Stand age 2.18 species cover Forest age 2.57 biomass distribution Exotic plant 2.5 Tree harvesting 3 Aquatic and 2.5 Ecosystem 3 Tree size/density 2.18 species levels riparian water respiration quality forestry Ecosystem 2.09 Forest bird 2.5 Aquatic macro- 2.75 Exotic plant 3 BMPs biomass species invertebrates species Disturbance 2.5 Forest soil BMPs 2.09 Lichen indices 2.5 Cold-water Fish 2.75 Foliage height 3 regimes indices of biotic integrity diversity Forest age 3

1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = good

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 31 Implications of Area 3 Some use condition indicators such continues to improve understand- Findings for Sustainable as criteria for wildlife habitat to be ing of relationships between con- Forestry retained, e.g., percent of land area dition indicators and biodiversity, in early successional vegetation, to such as that between snag density Policy indicators establish overall a limited degree. and the diversity and abundance directions and objectives. What is generally lacking is sys- of woodpecker species, or whether Condition and pressure indicators tem flexibility and a process that snags should be distributed evenly are expressed with units of meas- forest managers can use to select across the property or clustered in ure (e.g., snags/acre, rotation condition and pressure indicators streamside zones and other small length, etc.) and provide informa- tailored to specific biodiversity reserves. tion on current conditions and values to be sustained in a specific A pressure indicator would tell trends. As a result, policy, condi- forest or landscape. These indica- something about where a resource tion, and pressure indicators all tors must be easy to measure and is headed. A good pressure indica- would be useful in making man- audit. This suggests the need to tor might be harvest rotation agement decisions and in achiev- reassess the role of indicators and length. If the present-day rotation ing biodiversity objectives in how they are selected and used in length is too short to allow large sustainable forestry (Table 3). certification systems or regulatory diameter snags to develop, there As forest certification systems programs. will be fewer large-diameter snags and regulatory programs address For example, large-diameter in the future, regardless of the the need to manage and protect snags are known to be important current density as indicated by certain aspects of biodiversity, for biodiversity in many forest the condition indicator. policies and plans must address types. A sample condition indica- In this respect, condition indica- biodiversity indicators. Major cer- tor for large snags might be the tors alone can be misleading— tification systems and regulatory density of large snags in the land- evidence of change in a condition programs tend to emphasize policy scape. This metric tells us about indicator may come too late, response indicators, e.g., land area the status, or condition, of the whereas pressure indicators can in reserves or the existence of a resource at present, and has units provide an early warning to future snag policy and management plan. of measure (snags/acre). Research change in condition. Finally, a policy response indicator might be the presence of an internal Table 3 policy for snag management. Types of Biodiversity Indicators (NCSSF A8) One of the easiest ways to identify policy response indicators is when Different types of indicators are designed to provide decision makers there are no units of measure for with different kinds of information. If indicators are chosen from each the indicator (NCSSF A8). the three types listed, decision makers will be much better able to track Good indicators will have performance for sustainability. high scientific merit; i.e., a well- established scientific relationship Type Purpose between the indicator and the Condition To indicate the level, or condition, of a specific value value(s) of concern. An indicator to be sustained (e.g., indicator: density of large- has good ecological breadth when diameter snags). it is correlated to a large number of other values that are not being Pressure To indicate the level of a stressor affecting the condition of a value of interest (e.g., indicator: measured. For example, large rotation length [a pressure that affects density of living-tree density, e.g., density large-diameter snags]). of trees greater than 18 inches in diameter, can be a good indicator Policy Response To indicate the level of policy action taken to maintain of mature forest epiphytes such the condition or reduce the pressure (e.g., indicator: as sensitive mosses and lichens, existence of a management strategy for maintaining nesting habitat for raptors, and large-diameter snags). future large-diameter snag density.

32 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Practicality and utility are vides users with a list of relevant important to forest managers. indicators. NCSSF is now funding Indicators are practical if they are a set of pilot activities (NCSSF A8 not expensive to measure, do not II) focused on refining its utility require special skills (e.g., a plant and effectiveness by field testing taxonomist) to measure, and do the indicator selection process not require complicated analysis. with stakeholder groups in various Utility refers to the forest man- regions. The project includes ager’s ability to use the indicator “train the trainers” workshops to to make a decision. If the meas- create a nationwide pool of people ured indicator metric does not who can help others use the web- guide the manager in making deci- based selection tool and conduct sions, the indicator has low utility the workshop-based selection (Table 4). If indicators have been process. evaluated and have the above characteristics, they probably will be useful. They will inform decision Table 4 makers and help them develop Biodiversity Indicator Evaluation Criteria (NCSSF A8) policies and objectives related to sustainable forestry. They will also Before specific indicators are selected for use in any sustainable be useful to independent auditors forestry situation, each should be evaluated for each of 5 categories in assessing conformance with of evaluation criteria. Indicators that are not evaluated for these forest certification programs. criteria are unlikely to serve decision makers or stakeholders well. Using indicators to monitor results is an important way to Evaluation Category Description determine if desired goals are Relevance The degree to which the indicator responds to being met. Effective monitoring the stressor of concern; e.g. timber harvesting can be based on a formal census as opposed to air pollution. of target species, or it may use Scientific merit Extent to which the indicator is supported informal tracking and recording by science. of individual species or indicator occurrences encountered through Ecological breadth The number of other ecosystem components other activities. (species, structures, and/or processes that the The Forest Biodiversity indicator indicates.) Indicators Selection Web Tool (NCSSF A8) helps forest man- Practicality The feasibility, including cost, time, and skill agers, stakeholders, and policy required, of measuring the indicator. makers to navigate the complex process of measuring biodiversity Utility Ability of decision makers to make decisions for sustainable forestry and pro- with the indicator.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 33 AREA 4 Sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation require management that recognizes and adapts to new information, changing environments, and shifting social priorities.

Finding 4A Management practices must adapt to evolving knowledge.

Forest landscapes are dynamic— NCSSF Results: When NCSSF and classification systems to forest uses and types will change. NFF asked forest practitioners, improve comparability and Policy and management must also managers, and policy makers what understanding, avoiding be dynamic, able to effectively they needed to better address bio- duplication of efforts. incorporate changing social values, diversity and sustainable forestry • Collaborative assessments, new science, and improved prac- issues, they identified three broad involving all parties in monitor- tice. Because so much about how types of additional information as ing and assessments, was a forests work is unknown or being of highest potential use. major concern for field practi- unknowable until the future (NCSSF R4: Users’ Needs Survey tioners. A more collaborative reveals it, adaptive management is and Workshops) approach should also be used often advocated as the best way to to make long-term predictions advance knowledge while attempt- • Synthesized and highly acces- using all available information, ing to meet goals or solve prob- sible data was the top concern with less time spent on legisla- lems. Adaptive management for forest managers and forest tive process. People also saw requires the full integration of policy makers, who saw a need a need to include traditional science, management, and stake- to correlate different types and ecological knowledge and holders in a process that treats sources of data into an accessi- recognize its worth. policies and plans as if they were ble “one-stop shopping” data- • Small-scale and site-specific hypotheses and the forest practice base, or a set of inter-related information especially on sites or strategy is the experimental databases. This would include of significant value was most treatment (Holling 1978). more common ecological often mentioned in conjunction with the need for larger-scale analysis or collaborative work, making it important in the context of other broader types of data, information, tools, and approaches. Also important were better small-scale research on distribution of species and mixed-habitat ranges, and analysis at the micro-level (NCSSF R4). BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

34 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Finding 4B Biodiversity conservation requires traditional forestry and more.

Adaptive management can work NCSSF surveyed forestland NCSSF researchers believe that to be only if accompanied by aggressive, owners and managers nationwide successful, you need a broader suite adequately funded monitoring about their forest management of indicators (NCSSF A8). programs based on clear working and biodiversity practices, with an hypotheses that provide a steady eye toward their selection and use This illustrates the new use of flow of data for management of indicators for biodiversity con- biodiversity indicators in forestry decision making. servation. Several interesting out- and the general lack of knowledge For example, NCSSF-funded comes were identified. Most about effective selection and use of research projects A1 and A4 landowners and land managers these indicators by forestry practi- respectively call for early detection surveyed believe the effects of tioners. Respondents most often systems for invasives and participa- their management on biodiversity considered timber inventory, tree tory monitoring and inventorying are an important consideration. species composition, age-class dis- systems for non-timber forest Practices aimed at protecting tribution, and stand structure to be products. But these systems will diversity are strongly influenced important indicators for successful only be useful if interactive, up-to- by other landowner objectives. biodiversity programs, as well as date databases make this informa- ecosystem/habitat protection and tion easily accessible. NCSSF Results: Nearly two-thirds protected areas provided by fed- Thus far, the success of adaptive of the landowners and land man- eral and state laws or regulations. management has been limited agers surveyed believed their bio- Fragmentation wasn’t considered by its inherent need for cultural diversity program to be successful to be important. Respondents who change in both scientific and man- and sixty percent of respondents believed they had more successful agement communities (Stankey felt their biodiversity program was programs tended to use more indi- et al 2003) and the need for all mostly implemented (NCSSF A3). cators. Figure 6 shows biodiversity involved to be willing to take risks In contrast, the most commonly indicators cited as “most impor- through bold actions that may measured and monitored features tant” by survey respondents. create errors or undesired out- of traditional forestry that respon- As highlighted in Finding 3, comes (Wildavsky 1988). Table 5 dents described as biodiversity indi- good indicators address pressures indicates some key differences cators are NOT congruent with good and policies related to the between scientists and policy mak- indicators for biodiversity as found resource, in addition to measura- ers in addressing issues. in the NCSSF A8 project results. ble conditions. Good indicators also must be based on composite Table 5 ecological breadth, practicality, Contrasting Cultures of Scientists and Policy Makers relevance, scientific merit, and (after Bernabo, 1995) usability characteristics. Table 2, “Important Indicators Identified Science Policy by Functional Characteristics,” Incremental Progress Deadlines and Crises offers a sampling of indicators Objective Facts Subjective Values across a range of characteristics. Proof Beliefs Finally, selecting effective indica- Measurements Perceptions tors requires consideration of Theory and Models Applications and Results clearly stated, specific biodiversity conservation objectives.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 35 Figure 6 Most Important Indicators Used

Percent of Respondents 20

0 Composition All species Forest Stream Tree Habitat Presence of Age-class Species Protected Vertical forest Animal of tree richness age class protection/ growth representation threatened distribution abundance forest areas structure species mix species distribution water and quality endangered

Finding 4C Forest management under different ownership types has implications for biodiversity.

NCSSF research on land use in the Southeast has identified two different forest management approaches based on whether the owner is economically or conservation oriented.

NCSSF Results: Economically oriented private forest landowners in the South need strong incentives for reducing biodiversity impacts of harvesting and site preparation on more intensively managed stands, and for enhancing non- timber and non-game wildlife attributes of existing forests. Conversely, one of the biggest threats to the forests under conservation or recreation oriented- landowners is development, which is increasing land values and pres-

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT sures to show economic return.

36 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Finding 4D The increasing interest in and gathering of non-timber forest products has both positive and negative implications for sustaining biodiversity. INSTITUTE FOR CULTURE AND ECOLOGY, KATHRYN LYNCH AND ERIC JONES

Regulatory policies that reduce management to prevent the Non-timber forest products the uncertainties and risks associ- woodpeckers from establishing (NTFPs) are a significant part of ated with endangered species colonies on their land. The intro- forest biodiversity. They include protection, such as US FWS Safe duction of the Safe Harbor pro- thousands of wild or semi-wild Harbor, conservation programs gram in this area could help in the forest species that occur through- that pay for “set-asides,” such as expansion of red cockaded wood- out the United States on both the USDA Conservation Reserve pecker colonies onto private lands. public and private lands. Few Program, and conservation ease- (NCSSF B1.2). forest managers are equipped to ments have been effective in Many conservation- and recre- manage NTFPs effectively, as encouraging retention of habitats ation-oriented landowners are formal guidelines or inventory for endangered species (NCSSF concerned about the long-term protocols are not generally avail- B1.2: Land Use History Impact sustainability of their efforts able. Many NTFP harvesters have on Biodiversity: Implications for to conserve biodiversity. In the developed a keen awareness of life Management Strategies in the Southeast, the life cycle of longleaf cycles, habitat, and availability of Southeastern US). pine forests is longer than the the products they collect, but this human life span. Many landowners traditional knowledge is usually Many economically oriented who have invested a great deal overlooked as a resource. Wider landowners in the South are of time, energy, and money in recognition of the credibility and actively managing to keep endan- managing and restoring longleaf value of this traditional ecologic gered species off their property. pine forests worry about what knowledge could make it more The Safe Harbor program pro- will happen when they die. useful in management strategies. vides a mechanism for maintain- Land ownership frequently passes ing habitat for the federally down through several generations, NCSSF Results: Limited research endangered red cockaded resulting in management by many on the culture and ecology sur- woodpecker while guaranteeing family members under a variety rounding NTFPs and the general landowners use rights for their of arrangements. It almost always absence of inventory and mon- property. Many landowners in the takes consensus on management itoring programs on state and Carolinas and Georgia participate to keep these forests intact. When Federal land hinders conservation in this program and view it as a development pressures build, that of non-timber forest product- positive response to many nega- consensus is much more difficult related biodiversity. The impacts tive incentives for endangered to maintain unless a conservation of removing fruits, cones, mush- species management by private easement is in place. Estate taxes rooms, and medicinal plants is cur- landowners. There was more fear and less conservation-minded heirs rently unknown, but could have of endangered species among can undo decades of work to build a transforming effect—positive private landowners in Alabama, and maintain a healthy, diverse or negative—on forest biodiversity a state that does not participate forest (NCSSF B1.2). (NCSSF A4: Assessment of Know- in Safe Harbor, than in either Although current policies and ledge about Non-Timber Forest Georgia or the Carolinas. For programs can encourage private Products Management Impacts on example, the growth of colonies landowners to retain endangered Biodiversity). of red cockaded woodpeckers species habitat and enhance biodi- in the Conecuh National Forest versity, these incentives do almost in South Alabama has caused nothing to encourage creation of many neighboring longleaf pine endangered species habitat on landowners to alter their private land.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 37 Finding 4E Effective management requires access to accurate relevant information and decision support tools.

NTFP species and harvesting When NCSSF surveyed forest applications to a set of decision- locations are declining as a result practitioners, managers, and deci- making needs identified by of development, road building, sion makers, they identified the a panel of forest biodiversity logging, grazing, and herbicide need for dynamic approaches and experts. spraying. The impact of these predictive tools to address biodi- The lack of widely accepted forest management practices versity and sustainability issues. problem definitions seriously on NTFPs and the people who Several participants identified restricts wider use of traditional depend on them should be moni- the need to look at how forests are DSSs in forest biodiversity deci- tored and addressed. NTFP changing, and the impact that sions. However, this problem harvesting should no longer be forest management alternatives, could be addressed by incorporat- ignored or considered a minor or including no action, would have ing indicator frameworks into special forest use. NTFP manage- on such a dynamic system. DSSs from the Montreal Process ment needs more funding and Both field practitioners and for- and other governmental efforts as increased staff responsibility and est managers mentioned the need well as non-governmental certifi- attention. for predictive models and flexible cation systems such as those of the More research is needed to link approaches, such as virtual forest Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) the increasing use of NTFPs to models that could simulate differ- and the Sustainable Forestry forest biodiversity. Participatory ent management alternatives over Initiative (SFI). inventory and monitoring pro- time and models of relationships Most existing DSSs focus either grams for both direct biodiversity or responses of species to forest on forest conditions or on wildlife. measures and indicators should be management. Linking these two types could developed, implemented, and ade- Forest policy makers tended to provide managers with a broad quately funded, and the results mention improved scientific tools. range of biodiversity indicator should be used to determine classes. However, integration of if desired goals are being met. NCSSF Results: Many existing basic types of information (bio- Effective monitoring may be decision support systems (DSSs) physical, social, and economic) based on a formal census of target can address components of forest by DSSs is still limited, and few species, or it may use informal biodiversity, but no DSS exists that DSS options exist for assessing the tracking and recording of informa- is easily accessible and can be used effects on biodiversity of climate, tion collected in the course of to assess the probable impacts of biological agents (pests, pathogens, other activities. In situations where alternative forest management invasives), or fire. NTFP harvesting adds value to a options on biodiversity (NCSSF Biodiversity problems span forest, encouragement of sustain- A10: Evaluation of the Needs and a multitude of ownerships, reflect- able NTFP harvesting could also Requirements for Decision Support ing the range of the species and be an incentive to maintain Systems). ecosystems of interest, but rela- working forest landscapes. tively few regional institutions Decision support systems (DSSs) exist that can make decisions at are computer-based tools that can these scales. DSSs could help help land managers and other coordinate decision making at stakeholders simulate, evaluate, various scales, but few have and/or optimize management explicit capabilities to do this alternatives. NCSSF supported or provide options for small a project (A10) that compiled landowners. Most DSSs that are more than 100 DSSs into an most suitable for use in sustainable on-line searchable database forest management are still proto- and compared 30 of them with types and aren’t easily accessible demonstrated forest-biodiversity by managers.

38 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Finding 4F Biodiversity conservation theories require adaptive management to assess their validity.

Although biodiversity conservation Each group of conservation theo- Because planning rules and theories abound, no single theory ries has sound scientific founda- processes and continued con- serves all biodiversity purposes. tions, and all are being used in the tention over federal land purposes NCSSF-funded researchers ana- United States. However, few have impose serious constraints, invest- lyzed and organized theories into been validated through field test- ments in adaptive management are the following clusters: ing, as biodiversity is so complex more likely to yield results on • reserve- and matrix-based and variable that it does not lend non-federal forestlands. In the approaches, which allocate land itself to traditional research meth- meantime, funding a manager’s to preservation through passive ods (NCSSF B.2). guidebook to conserving bio- or active management It is very important to evaluate diversity, incorporating biodiver- •“Diversity Begets Diversity” the effectiveness of various theo- sity conservation into forest and “Using Nature’s Template” ries and combinations of theories resource curricula, and most models that either undertake a in terms of tradeoffs and costs. For importantly, promoting adaptive diversity of forest management example, a common approach to management for outreach and regimes or mimic patterns biodiversity conservation is to demonstration can foster commu- created by natural disturbance establish large reserves such as nication and understanding regimes national parks and wilderness between conservation scientists • fine filter (focused on species), areas. But many of these reserves and practitioners. Until successful medium filter (ecosystem are in places without much biodi- adaptive management programs elements), coarse filter versity, some entail substantial develop better knowledge about (ecosystems), and hotspots tradeoffs to other resource values, how well each theory works in (areas of high species richness) all are costly, and it is unlikely that practice and at what costs, it is approaches the area and location of such also important to include clear • patchworks, networks, and reserves will ever be sufficient to descriptions of each theory’s gradients as models of landscape cover all biodiversity concerns. known efficacy and limitations configuration. Less costly and more feasible ways for different biodiversity to achieve biodiversity might conservation purposes NCSSF Results: Given the com- include: (NCSSF B.2). plexity of conservation strategies, • “micro-reserves” of a few acres variability in field applications and • “meso-reserves” comprising costs, and challenges in validation medium-sized areas that provide and calibration, adaptive manage- appropriately managed buffers ment with effective monitoring to protect landscape elements of and evaluation of implementation extraordinary importance to is the only feasible way to test the native species and ecosystem designs and applications of various processes such as aquatic conservation theories. (NCSSF B.2 features Calibration of Conservation Theory • biological legacies that link past and Principles Applied at Various and future systems in working Geographic Scales). forest landscapes.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 39 Implications of Area 4 protected species. State DSSs in multi-ownership, Findings for Sustainable heritage programs and multi-stakeholder decision Forestry NatureServe are good sources processes characterized by lack of information. Gap analysis of agreement on either prob- Developing and implementing and eco-regional planning lems or solutions. cost-effective conservation strate- efforts are useful in identify- •Monitor results using indicators gies and practices will enhance ing areas of high conservation to determine if desired goals are biodiversity. Biodiversity planning value. being met. Effective monitoring and implementation obviously are ° Protect landscape legacies may be based on a formal constrained by tract size and his- and other system elements census of target species, or tory, ownership patterns, and that maintain stability and it may use informal tracking overall management goals, e.g., resilience, allowing recovery and recording of element producing wood or maintaining a from disturbance without occurrences encountered in forest reserve. However, some long-term loss of diversity the course of other activities. general features apply across the and functional integrity. (An element occurrence is a range of considerations. Most bio- ° Protect “special places” such natural feature of special eco- diversity plans involve the follow- as waterfalls, cliffs, and caves logical interest such as a bird ing steps: that may harbor rare habitats rookery or a distinctive habitat • Clearly articulate land-manage- and be subject to heavy recre- such as a cave or sinkhole.) ment objectives and determine ational use. what can be accomplished at ° Develop and implement Landowners and managers in various scales, e.g., legacies streamside management and the United States should become within stands, other aspects of road construction practices familiar with the important ele- stand structure, landscape, etc. consistent with best manage- ments of biodiversity programs • Identify a set of relevant biodi- ment plan (BMP) guidelines, and the most useful options and versity indicators, using a tool best available science, and strategies (NCSSF R2). This won’t such as the one developed in local knowledge. be easy to achieve. Current fund- NCSSF A8. A combination of • Determine the role of NTFPs, ing for research and technology condition, pressure, and policy which can create economic to sustain biodiversity is inade- response indicators allows deci- return but may destroy biodi- quate. The number of foresters sion makers to track perform- versity without careful manage- has also decreased in recent years, ance for sustainability more ment. Support of NTFP species reducing family forest owners’ effectively. Conservation plan- can lead to increased variety in access to professional advice. ning can then proceed by (1) the landscape, and using them However, several NCSSF delineating features that influ- culturally can encourage stew- projects were begun in 2004 to ence the suitability of a land- ardship of native biodiversity. increase understanding of biodi- scape for the indicators, and (2) Lack of data and guidelines on versity conservation and what managing for the features. what to do or not to do makes should be included in biodiversity ° Identify, delineate, and pro- NTFP management challeng- management plans and to alert the tect rare plant communities ing. scientific community to remaining and other areas of high con- •Use available tools. Great gaps. NCSSF C5, Assessment of servation value such as bird progress has been made in visu- Public Knowledge, Values, and nesting areas and colonies of alization, but few other features Attitudes toward Biodiversity and for communication and social Sustainable Forestry, will emphasize negotiation have been integrated into DSSs. Such features would increase the usefulness of

40 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry attitudes about biodiversity versus other forest values such as water quality, wood production, or recreation. NCSSF C4 is developing guidelines for participatory monitoring of sustainable forestry. NCSSF Project A4 (II) will create a professional and academic curriculum for NTFPs, as most current information about NTFPs comes from practitioners’ knowledge rather than formal education. And NCSSF Project A10 (II) will develop plans for a state-of-the-art DSS that addresses current DSS weaknesses identified by NCSSF A10. It is important to recognize that many family forest owners aren’t managing their lands. As mentioned earlier, more than 10 million people own 276 million acres of forestland in the United States for non-industrial purposes. Four million people own almost 90% of that land in 10 to 5,000 acre parcels. While well over half of the NCSSF Project A3 respondents listed nature protection as a reason for land ownership, fewer than 15% of those owners had improved any wildlife habitat in the five years prior to 2002 or planned any habitat improvement in the following five years. Less than half had sought professional advice of any kind. Knowing everything there is to know about effective biodiversity conservation strategies won’t matter if landowners don’t see the value in using that knowledge in managing their forestlands. Many family forest owners simply aren’t managing their lands for sustainability and biodiversity.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 41 WORK IN PROGRESS

4 Adaptive Management of NCSSF s the NCSSF program has advanced, the Commission has invited its broad target audiences to help interactively identify the most important work for improving the basis for sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation. The initial NCSSF project selections were based primarily on the broad expertise of the diverse Commission members, but later projects emerged from extensive external input from a larger set of stakeholders as well as the Commission’s deliberations over the earlier projects’ results. Stakeholders have repeatedly urged NCSSF not only to continue research and tool development but also to shed light on where consensus exists on major issues related to biodiversity and Asustainable forestry (the goals of Sections II and III of this report). The Commission is viewed as a much needed impartial mediator who can address controversial issues more objectively because of its independent, multi-stakeholder character. This Findings Report attempts to do that by synthesizing the significance of the NCSSF project results into broader “findings” and providing the Commission’s consensus on key issues. Feedback and responses to this report will be used to make future reports and materials pub- lished by the Commission even more effective in reaching our communication goals. PHOTO COURTESY OF USDA NRCS PHOTO COURTESY

42 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry In response to the stakeholders’ • examining the consequences of articulated needs, NCSSF also is plantations for biodiversity (C1) addressing two major concerns by • understanding the impacts of hosting meetings of key parties to fire management strategies on identify consensus (as well as biodiversity (C4). divergence) to help the broader stakeholder communities sort out These and other ongoing NCSSF these issues. These meetings will projects are building a firmer basis assess the role of globalization of for sustainable forestry and biodi- forest products markets on biodiversity conservation practices by versity (C9) and develop a better practitioners, managers, and policy definition of “old growth” from makers. The new projects begun the practical aspects of sustainable in 2004 are described briefly forestry and conserving biodiver- below in Table 6.

sity (C10). Other high priority USDA FOREST SERVICE needs identified by stakeholders in Next Steps surveys and workshops (NCSSF R4) and examples of the projects Current funding will support one that NCSSF is now conducting to more round of project grants in address these users’ needs include: 2005. NCSSF will be increasingly • determining public awareness, focused on providing information knowledge, and attitudes about and tools to users through applica- biodiversity (C5) tions workshops, guide books, and • developing protocols for partici- other means of communication patory monitoring and research and technology transfer. The (C8) Commission also will work with • identifying incentives for current and potential new spon- non-industrial landowners sors to frame the focus of the next to address biodiversity (C2) five-year phase of the NCSSF • conducting tool applications program. with diverse stakeholders on the Over the next two years, ground (A8 II, R5) NCSSF-funded work will yield • enhancing practitioners’ additional useful findings. Equally knowledge of non-timber important, NCSSF will generate forest products (A4 II) additional practical tools based on •improving measures of conser- science and tested for their utility vation success and applications to enable practitioners to achieve (C3, B4, A8 II, A9) more progress where it counts— • determining the impacts on the ground across America’s of sustainable forestry on diverse forest landscapes. Along invasives (C7) the way, this work will also reveal • documenting how ownership gaps where yet more research is changes influence biodiversity needed, guiding future efforts by (C11). NCSSF and others to advance sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 43 Table 6 NCSSF Ongoing 2004-2005 Project Descriptions

NCSSF is supporting the following 17 new biodiversity and sustainable forestry efforts, initiated in June 2004. More detailed information can be found at www.ncssf.org. (A list of all NCSSF projects is in Appendix Table A-I)

A4 II: Curriculum Development for Non-Timber Forest Products—Will capture the wealth of information gained from A4 results to use as the foundation for development of new curriculum for academic and professional education programs. Expected results include (1) needs assessment report, (2) completion of a pilot academic course, (3) completion of a pilot short course for managers, (4) hard copy and CD-ROM of course materials, and (5) evaluation of courses and recommendations for future academic programs on non-timber forest products and biodiversity.

A5 West II: Part 2—Assessment of the Scientific Basis for Standards/Practices at the Stand, Management Unit, Landscape, and Regional Level: Oregon Coast Range—Will develop images and general insights about multi- scale management across ownerships, clarifying scientific knowledge and demonstrating what ecosystem science can contribute to environmental, social, and economic priorities. Expected results include (1) additional biodiversity indicators for the Coastal Landscape Analysis Modeling Study, (2) biodiversity implications of 1 to 2 new feasible policy alternatives, (3) new landscape simulation movies on the web, and (4) workshops.

A5 East II: Part 2—Assessment of the Scientific Basis for Standards/Practices at the Stand, Management Unit, Landscape, and Regional Level: Southeastern U.S.—The objective of this renewal includes developing new perspectives and insights about multi-scale management across ownerships. By providing a scientifically based picture of large areas over long-time frames, the work will provide new perspectives to managers, policy makers, and the public, and through these new perspectives help sharpen the focus of forest management debates.

A8 II: Field Tests, Refinement, and Training of the NCSSF/Manomet Biodiversity Indicators Selection Protocol and Web-based Tool—Will field test, refine, and implement the NCSSF/Manomet Protocol for selecting core indicators for biodiversity in sustainable forestry. Expected results include (1) field tests and review of the A8 indicators database and selection protocol, (2) refinement of both, and (3) “train the trainers” workshop(s) leading to people nationwide capable of training and assisting others in using the database and protocol.

A10 II: Decision Support Systems for Forest Biodiversity Phase II: Requirements Analysis and Development Plan—Will undertake a comprehensive requirement analysis to advance the next generation of decision support tools for policy makers, managers, and scientists in government, industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. Expected results include (1) a development plan for building a state-of-the-art tool, or suite of tools, for forest biodiversity management; (2) minimum and optimal data needs to make use of the tools; and (3) individuals and organizations capable of creating the needed tools.

C1: Biodiversity & Intensive Even-Aged Forest Management—Will compare the effects of modified intensive forest management systems on biodiversity for planted even-aged loblolly pine and Douglas Fir using biodiversity indicators (see also NCSSF Project A8 report). Expected results include comparisons at the regional level, integrated evaluation of prescriptions and diversity effects, and recommendations for management alternatives.

C2: Existing and Potential Incentives for Practicing Sustainable Forestry on Non-Industrial Private Forest Lands— Addressing several of the needs identified at the NCSSF User Needs Workshops, this project will (1) review and compile summary information on “sustainable forestry” incentives available to non-industrial private landowners and (2) determine the incentives that are most attractive (e.g., cost-share for stewardship practices, preferential tax-assessments, market incentives, etc.). Expected results include a written report and a web-based searchable database of incentive programs.

44 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry C3: The Conservation Context of Forestry—Will analyze Florida’s existing state Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans, which identify land and water areas requiring some form of conservation status for protection of the habitat of one or more species, to assess the range of areas and forest practices that could be compatible with conservation needs and values on non-industrial private forest lands. Expected results include case studies of important habitat areas.

C4: Biodiversity Implications of Post-Fire Recovery Strategies—Will facilitate the development of a knowledge base for managers and the public to better inform both parties about how different approaches to post-wildfire recovery—contour felling trees to reduce soil erosion, salvage logging, tree planting, vegetation control, etc.—affect ecosystem diversity and functions. Expected results include a written report and user-friendly products. C4.1: Looking At Soils and Soil Fungi under Oaks and Pines Following Fire in California C4.2: Using Remote Sensing to evaluate the 2002 Biscuit Oregon Fire Post-fire Restoration (using A8 indicators) C4.3: Understory Species Recovery in Rehabilitated and Un-rehabilitated Portions of the 2002 Hayman Colorado Fire

C5: Assessment of Public Knowledge, Values, and Attitudes toward Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry— Will assess the scope of research on public values about biodiversity with emphasis on public attitudes about biodiversity versus other forest values, e.g., water quality, wood production, recreation, carbon sequestration, etc. Expected results include a report assessing breadth and depth of current research, research methods, and data quality on this topic and recommendations for future survey research.

C7: Understanding How Forest Management Practices Affect Species Invasions and Impacts—Will synthesize learning about how forest management practices affect species invasions in forested ecosystems and derive prescriptions for minimizing the most harmful effects on forest biodiversity. Expected results include a written report.

C8: Guidelines for Participatory Biodiversity Inventory and Monitoring of Sustainable Forest Management—Will develop a broad-based biodiversity inventory and monitoring system for implementation by trained volunteers at the local level. Expected results include (1) a manual and implementation handbook and (2) a “train the trainer” curricula for use by forest managers.

C9: Building a Common Understanding of Likely Global Market Changes for Forest Products and the Implications for Forest Biodiversity in the United States—NCSSF will organize a forum of leading stakeholders and researchers to develop a common perspective on how projected market changes for forest products will influence forest harvesting, product mix, management intensity, rotation lengths, etc. as a basis for research and policies related to forests and biodiversity. Expected results include a written report.

C10: Defining the Characteristics, Functions, and Strategies for Protecting and Perpetuating Old-growth and Late-successional Forests at Stand and Landscape Scales—Will bring the best regional scientific thinking on old-growth and late-successional forest ecology, classification, and conservation together in the Northwest and Northeast to develop a synthesis useful for application to Federal forest policies such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. Expected results include a white paper.

C11: Examining Non-industrial Ownership and Biodiversity in the Northeastern U.S.—Will test hypotheses linking the effects of ownership on biodiversity through changes in major policies and on-the-ground practices, e.g., are there consistent differences in application of BMPs, type and level of forest certification sought, kind and extent of easements sold, etc? Expected results include evidence-based advice for regulators and purchasers of conservation easements.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 45 Appendix

Table A-I NCSSF Project Information (Codes as referred to in report)

Syntheses and Survey Projects A1 Invasives Management and Biodiversity (Completed April, 2004) Synthesize Existing Science Relating Forest Management Practices to the Spread of Forest Diseases and Exotic Invasive Weeds, Project Leader Elizabeth Chornesky: Conservation Science and Policy; CA. NCSSF Project Steward: Ann Bartuska A2 Hydrology and Aquatic Ecosystems (June 30, 2002–July 1, 2003) Synthesize Existing Science Connecting Forest Biodiversity/Complexity to Hydrologic Processes and Aquatic Ecosystems, Project Leader Michael Huston: Interdisciplinary Solutions for Environmental Sustainability, Inc.; TN. NCSSF Project Steward: Norm Christensen A3 Survey of Sustainable Forestry Management Lessons Learned (June 30, 2002–Dec. 30, 2003) Survey the Lessons Learned about Managing Forests for Biodiversity and Sustainability Based on Practical Experiences, Project Leader Steven R. Radosevich: Oregon State University. NCSSF Project Steward: Jim Brown B1.1 Land Use Impacts on Management—Northeastern U.S. (June 30, 2003–July 1, 2004) Land Use History Impact on Biodiversity: Implications for Management Strategies in the Northeastern US, including the Lake States, Project Leader John Litvaitis: University of New Hampshire. NCSSF Project Steward: John Gordon B1.2 Land Use Impacts on Management—Southeastern U.S. (June 30, 2003–July 1, 2003) Land Use History Impact on Biodiversity: Implications for Management Strategies in the Southeastern U.S., Project Leader Josh McDaniel: Auburn University; AL. NCSSF Project Steward: Norm Christensen B1.3 Land Use Impacts on Management—Western U.S. (June 30, 2003–July 1, 2004) Land Use History Impact on Biodiversity: Implications for Management Strategies in the Western U.S., Project Leader Gary Nabhan: Northern Arizona University. NCSSF Project Steward: Norm Christensen C1 Plantations and Biodiversity (June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Biodiversity & Intensive Even-Aged Forest Management, Project Leader Tom Hinkley: University of Washington. NCSSF Project Steward: John Gordon C2 Incentives for Sustainable Forest Management on Private Lands (June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Existing and Potential Incentives for Practicing Sustainable Forestry on Non-Industrial Private Forest Lands, Project Leader John Greene: USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station; LA. NCSSF Project Steward: Al Sample C11 Ownership Changes and Biodiversity (June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Non-industrial Ownership and Biodiversity, Project Leader John Hagan: Manomet Center for Conservations Sciences; ME. NCSSF Project Steward: John Gordon

Research and Assessments Projects A4 Non-Timber Forest Products and Biodiversity (June 30, 2002–December 30, 2003) Assess Knowledge about Non-Timber Forest Products Management Impacts on Biodiversity, Project Leaders Rebecca McLain and Kathryn Lynch: Institute for Culture and Ecology; OR. NCSSF Project Steward: Joyce Berry

continued on page 47

46 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry A5E Science Basis for Management—Eastern U.S. (June 30, 2002–December 30, 2003/June 30, 2004– I & II July 1, 2005) Assess the Scientific Basis for Standards/Practices at the Stand, Management Unit, and Landscape Levels in the Eastern United States, Project Leader T. Bently Wigley: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc; SC. NCSSF Project Steward: Dave Perry A5W Science Basis for Management—Western U.S. (June 30, 2002–December 30, 2003/ I & II June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Assess the Scientific Basis for Standards/Practices at the Stand, Management Unit, and Landscape Levels in the Western United States, Project Leader Thomas A. Spies: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station; OR. NCSSF Project Steward: Dave Perry A6 Ecosystem Restoration and Biodiversity (June 30, 2002–July 1, 2003) Evaluate the Role of Ecosystem Restoration on Biodiversity, Project Leader Robert J. Mitchell: Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center; GA. NCSSF Project Steward: Norm Christensen A7 Forest Fragmentation and Research (June 30, 2002–July 1, 2003) Identify Biodiversity Research Needs Related to Forest Fragmentation, Project Leader John Kupfer: University of Arizona. NCSSF Project Steward: Al Lucier B2 Calibration of Theory and Practice (June 30, 2003–July 1, 2004) Calibration of Conservation Theory and Principles Applied at Various Geographic Scales, Project Leader Robert Mitchell: Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center; GA. NCSSF Project Steward: Hal Salwasser C3 Conservation Context for Forestry (June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Identification and Assessment of Conservation Compatible Forest Practices (CCFPs) on Private Forestlands, Project Leader Janaki Alavalapati: University of Florida. NCSSF Project Steward: Norm Christensen C4.1 Post-Fire Strategies and Biodiversity (June 30, 2004–December 30, 2005) Looking At Soils and Soil Fungi Under Oaks and Pines Following Fire, Project Leader Louise Egerton-Warburton: Chicago Botanic Gardens; IL NCSSF Project Steward: Dave Perry C4.2 Post-Fire Strategies and Biodiversity (June 30, 2004–December 30, 2005) Using Remote Sensing to Evaluate the 2002 Biscuit Fire Post-fire Restoration, Project Leader Bernard Bormann: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station; OR. NCSSF Project Steward: Dave Perry C4.3 Post-Fire Strategies and Biodiversity (June 30, 2004–December 30, 2005) Understory Species Recovery in Rehabilitated and Unrehabilitated Portions of the 2002 Hayman Fire, Project Leader Paula Fornwalt: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station; CO. NCSSF Project Steward: Dave Perry C5 Public Attitudes and Values: Biodiversity (June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Assess Public Knowledge, Values, and Attitudes toward Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry, Project Leader Michael Manfredo: Colorado State University. NCSSF Project Steward: Joyce Berry

Tool Development Projects A8 Biodiversity Indicators Selection System (June 30, 2002–July 1, 2003) Identify Core Biodiversity Indicators to Apply to Sustainable Forestry, Project Leader John M. Hagan: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, ME. NCSSF Project Steward: Hal Salwasser

continued on page 48

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 47 A8 II Pilot Applications of Indicator System (June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Field Tests, Refinement and Training of the NCSSF/Manomet Biodiversity Indicators Selection Protocol and Website, Project Leader John M. Hagan: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, ME. NCSSF Project Steward: Hal Salwasser A9 Ecosystem Function Indicators (June 30, 2003–December 30, 2004) Evaluate Indicators of Ecosystem Function Applicable to Forest Management, Project Leader Daniel Markewitz: University of Georgia. NCSSF Project Steward: Ron Pulliam A10 Evaluation Decision Support Systems (June 30, 2002–July 1, 2003) Evaluate the Needs And Requirements for Decision Support Systems, Project Leader K. Norman Johnson: Oregon State University. NCSSF Project Steward: Chris Bernabo A10 II Requirements for Improved Decision Support Systems (June 30 2004–July 1, 2005) Decision Support Systems for Forest Biodiversity Phase II: Requirements Analysis and Development Plan, Project Leader K. Norman Johnson: Oregon State University. NCSSF Project Steward: Chris Bernabo B4 Risk Management Decision Support (June 30, 2003–December 30, 2004) Illuminating Choice in Sustainable Forest Management: A Comparative Risk Assessment Framework and Tools (CRAFT), Project Leader Danny Lee: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. NCSSF Project Steward: Hal Salwasser C7 Forest Management and Invasives (June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Understand How Forest Management Practices Affect Species Invasions and Impacts, Project Leader Lisa Rew: Montana State University. NCSSF Project Steward: Ann Bartuska C8 Guidelines for Participatory Monitoring (June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Guidelines for Participatory Biodiversity Inventory and Monitoring of Sustainable Forest Management, Project Leader David Pilz: Institute for Culture and Ecology; OR. NCSSF Project Steward: Joyce Berry

Communication and Outreach A4 II Curriculum Development for Non-Timber Forest Products (June 30, 2004–July 1, 2005) Curriculum Development for Non-Timber Forest Products, Project Leader Kathryn Lynch: Institute for Culture and Ecology; OR. NCSSF Project Steward: Joyce Berry C9 Global Markets and Biodiversity Forum (Winter 2005) Gain a Common Understanding of Likely Global Market Changes for Forest Products and the Implications for Forest Biodiversity in the United States, NCSSF Project Steward: Scott Wallinger C10 Old Growth Workshops (Spring 2005) Defining the Characteristics, Functions and Strategies for Protecting and Perpetuating Old-growth and Late-successional Forests at Stand and Landscape Scales, NCSSF Project Steward: John Gordon R1 State of The Science Report (Completed February 2002). NCSSF Report available R2 Annual Symposium—Biodiversity in Forest Planning and Management June 2002 Portland, OR. NCSSF Report available R3 Second Annual Symposium—Fire, Forest Health and Biodiversity June 2003 Denver, CO. NCSSF Report available R4 Users’ Needs Workshops Summary—Linking Science to Practice (in partnership with NFF) April 2003—Alexandria, VA and September 2003—Missoula, MT. NCSSF Report available R5 Sustainable Forestry Tools and Applications Workshop (in partnership with NFF) June 2004, Boulder CO. NCSSF Report available

48 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Table A-II NCSSF Phase 1 Program Timeline

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Oct.– Jan.– Apr.– Jul.– Oct.– Jan.– Apr.– Jul.– Oct.– Jan.– Apr.– Jul.– Oct.– Jan.– Apr.– Jul.– Oct.– Jan.– Apr.– Jul.– Dec. Mar. Jun. Sep. Dec. Mar. Jun. Sep. Dec. Mar. Jun. Sep. Dec. Mar. Jun. Sep. Dec. Mar. Jun. Sep. Dates 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006

Actions The Commission convenes Users provide input 1st annual round of RFPs— “A” series projects selected “A” series projects underway “A” series results released 2nd annual round of RFPs— “B” series projects selected “B” series projects underway “B” series results released 3rd annual round of RFPs— “C” series projects selected “C” series projects underway C” series results released Findings Report produced 4th annual round of RFPs— “D” series projects selected “D” series projects underway “D” series results released Guide Book produced

completed planned

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 49 References

Bernabo, J. Chris (1995). Dwyer, John F.; Nowak, David J.; PCA—Plant Conservation Communication among Scientists, Noble, Mary Heather; Sisinni, Alliance. Undated. Weeds gone wild: Decision Makers and Society: Susan M. 2000. Connecting people alien plant invaders of natural areas. Developing Policy Relevant Global with ecosystems in the 21st century: Climate Change Research. In an assessment of our nation’s urban Perlin, J. 1991. A forest journey: the Climate Change Research: forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- role of wood in the development of Evaluation and Policy Implications GTR-490. Portland, OR: U.S. civilization. Harvard Univ. Press, (S. Zwerver et al., Eds., Elsevier Department of Agriculture, Forest Cambridge, MA publishers) Service, Pacific Northwest p. 103-117. Research Station. 483 Perry, D.A., Huang Jing, A. Youngblood, and D.R. Oetter. Brussard, Peter F. 1994. Why do we Fitzgerald, S.A. 2003. Fire in 2004. Forest structure and fire want to conserve biological diversity Oregon’s forests—a science paper. susceptibility in volcanic landscapes of anyway? Society for Conservation Oregon Forest Resources the eastern High Cascades, Oregon. Biology Newsletter, vol. 1, no. 4. Institute, Portland, OR. Cons. Bio. 18, 913-926

Campbell, F.T. and S.E. Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive Pickett, S.T.A. , V.T. Parker, and Schlarbaum. 2002. Fading Forests environmental assessment and man- P. L. Fiedler. 1992. The new II: Trading away North American’s agement. John Wiley and Sons, paradigm for ecology: implications for Natural Heritage. Healing Stones London conservation biology above the species Foundation in Cooperation with level. In Conservation Biology. the American Lands Alliance and Keystone Center, The. 1991. P. L. Fiedler and S.K. Jain (eds). The University of Tennessee, Biological diversity on federal lands: Chapman Hall. New York. Knoxville. 132 pp. Report on a Keystone pp 65-88 policy dialogue. Keystone, CO. Ciesla, W.M., and J. Coulston. Sedjo, R. and D. Botkin. 1997. 2002. Report of the United States on Krakowski, J., S.N. Aitken, and Using forest plantations to spare the criteria and indicators for the sus- Y.A. El-Kassaby. 2003. Inbreeding natural forests. Environment, tainable management of temperate and conservation genetics in white- No. 10: 15-20, 30. and boreal forests of the United bark pine. Conservation Genetics States: Supporting analysis for 4: 581-593. Society of American Foresters. Criterion 3, Indicator 15. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Liebhold, A.M., MacDonald, John A. Helms, editor. W.L. Bergdahl, D., and Mastro, V.C. 1995. Invasion by exotic forest pests: a threat to forest ecosystems. Forest Science Monographs 30: 41: 1-49 p.

MacCleery, D.W. 1992. American forests: a history of resiliency and recovery. Forest History Society, Durham, NC

50 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry Stankey, G.H., B.T. Bormann, C. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Ryan, B. Shindler, V. Sturtevant, Forest facts and historical trends. R.N. Clark, and C. Philpot. 2003. FS-696-M, Washington, DC Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric and USDA Forest Service. 2004. reality. J. For. 101(1): 40-46. National report on sustainable forests—2003. FS-766, TNC—The Nature Conservancy. Washington, DC Wildland Invasive Species Team. Undated. Invasives on the web. NRCS—USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Tingley, M.W., D.A. Orwig, R. Undated. Plants database. Field, G. Motzkin. 2002. Avian response to removal of a forest domi- Williams, M. 1989. Americans and nant: consequences of hemlock woolly their forests: a historical geography. adelgid infestations. Journal of Cambridge Univ. Press, NY Biogeography 29: 1505-1516. Wildavsky, A. 1988. Searching for safety. Transaction Pub. New Victor, D.G. and J.H. Ausubel. Brunswick, NJ 2000. Restoring the forests. Foreign Affairs Vo. 79(6): 127-144. World Wildlife Fund. 2001. The forest industry in the 21st century. UN FAO, 2003 Food and WWF International, Surrey, UK Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003. State of the world’s forests. 2003. Rome.

USDA. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Forest Service. 2000. Draft pest risk assessment for importation of solid wood packing materials into the United States.

A Findings Report of the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 51 Acknowledgments

NCSSF wants to first thank our visionary sponsors for funding the NCSSF including the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the National Forest Foundation (NFF), and the Surdna Foundation. NCSSF also would like to express special appreciation to the National Forest Foundation (NFF) as a valuable partner in conducting user and applications workshops and surveys by providing staff support and much needed contacts with on-the-ground practitioners.

NCSSF thanks the dozens of investigators who have conducted projects for the program as listed in Table A-I. We also want to express our appreciation to the following individuals for their valuable suggestions as report reviewers: James Agee, University of Washington Ajit Krishnaswamy, National Network of Forest Practitioners Si Balch, New England Forestry Foundation Gerald Rose, National Association of State Foresters John Helms, Society of American Foresters Paul Trianosky, The Nature Conservancy Joel Holtrop, USDA Forest Service

NCSSF wants to thank the hundreds of individuals who were involved in our activities through participation in users’ surveys, application and users’ workshops, as proposal reviewers, and in other roles. These individuals contributed to the success of NCSSF in many ways and were from a variety of organizations including: American Bird Conservancy Mt. Adams Resource Stewards Society of American Foresters American Forest and Paper Association National Network of Forest Practitioners Southern Appalachian Man and Biosphere American Forest Resource Council National Association of State Foresters Foundation American Tree Farm System National Hardwood Lumber Association Sustainable Forestry Board Appalachian Forest Resource Center National Wildlife Federation, Sustainable Northwest Applegate Partnership Northern Rockies Swan Ecosystem Center Bureau of Land Management National Wildlife Federation, Vermont Tetra Tech FW Coalition for the Upper South Platte Office University of Montana Colorado State Forest Service NatureServe Upper Deschutes Watershed Council The Conservation Fund Nez Perce Tribe Watershed, Fisheries USDA Forest Service, Bitterroot National Cradle of Forestry Department Forest Flathead Economic Policy Center Northwest Connections USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Forest Resources Planning Pacific West Community Forestry Center USDA Forest Service Northern Region Forest Stewardship Council Partners of the Cherokee National Forest Ecosystem Assessment Forest Stewards Guild Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain The Forest Trust Pinchot Institute Region General Accounting Office Placer Dome America USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain General Dynamics Decision Systems Priest River Group Research Station Georgia Forestry Commission Pyramid Mountain Lumber Co. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Huber Resources Corp Ravalli County Station The Irland Group Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Wallowa Resources Land Trust for the Little Tennessee Ruffed Grouse Society Watershed Research and Training Center Liz Claiborne & Art Ottenberg Foundation Seeley Lake Forest Council Western Carolina University Louisiana Office of Forestry Seven Islands Land Company Western Forestry Leadership Coalition MeadWestvaco Shasta Energy Group Weyerhaeuser Montana Department of Natural Siuslaw Watershed Council The Wilderness Society Resources Conservation Society for the Protection of New Wisconsin DNR Division of Forestry Montana Logging Association Hampshire’s Forests Wyoming State Forestry Division

Finally, NCSSF acknowledges the valuable assistance of other key people who contributed to preparing this Findings Report including Michelle Harvey (science writer), Henry Lansford (editor), and Diane Buric (layout designer).

The Findings Report contents are the sole responsibility of the Commissioners and NCSSF implies no explicit endorsement of the findings from any person or institution acknowledged here.

52 Science, Biodiversity, and Sustainable Forestry BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry

1707 H Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006

202-207-0006 202-628-4311 fax www.ncssf.org

Printed on recycled paper using Soy Inks.