Oregon
Sustainable Forest Management Indicators

Better Data Better Dialogue Better Decisions

Welcome on behalf of Board and State Forester

Objectives:

Learn how to critically evaluate and select effective indicators.

Help the Board of Forestrys Sustainable Forestry Indicator Advisory Committee develop recommendations for Oregon indicators for the conservation of native forest plant and animal populations and their habitats

Recognize advisory committee members

What we will cover . . .

Key Forestry Program for Oregon concepts

Sustainable forest management indicator development

The definition of sustainability is internationally recognized and was added to Oregon state statutes in 2001.

The Oregon Board of Forestry is directed by the Oregon Legislature to...

Supervise all matters of forest policy within OregonAppoint the State ForesterAdopt rules regulating forest practicesProvide general supervision of the State Forester's duties in managing the Oregon Department of Forestry.

Boards responsibilities are spelled out is state statutes

Supervision of all matters of forest policy is interpreted broadly. Board plays a policy role with respect to all 28 million acres of Oregon forestland (private, state, local, federal, tribal). May not have direct control or oversight on all forestlands, but still works to influence management on all ownerships to be consistent with board polices.

The Forestry Program for Oregon

Strategic forest policy statement of the boardBuilt upon monitoring data, science, resource assessments, and public processes1977, 82: sustainable timber supply1990: sustaining multiple values1995: landscape perspective2003: sustainable forest management

All boards and commissions operate based on their philosophies, policies, and priorities. The FPFO puts the Board of Forestrys philosophies, policies, and priorities on paper and it forms a consistent foundation on which the board makes future policy decisions on matters brought before it.

FPFO is neither a statute nor an administrative rule and, therefore, does not have, and is not intended to have, the effect of either a statute or an administrative rule on the board, the department, or forest landowners.

2003 Forestry Program for Oregon is the fifth addition. Typically revised about every eight years. Previous four all dealt in some way with sustainability. Focus has changed (broadened) over time with changing public values.

Forest Policymaking and Implementation are Difficult!

Conflicting valuesSocial values hard to defineSerious discrepancy between social values as measured by public opinion vs behaviorConflicting interestsSome have an interest in maintaining conflict (paid gladiators)Conflicting scienceScientific uncertainty;Difficulty in achieving consensus Scientists advocating a policy choice based upon their view of the world.

Conflicting values, interests, and science have historically made forest policymaking in Oregon very difficult and politically unstable,

Extreme ideologies are not constructive

Markets know best

Nature knows best

Government knows best

Scientists know best

I know best

Locals know best

The law is clear

Common

Ground

(Concept developed by Hal Salwasser OSU College of Forestry Dean)

Forestry discussions are polarized. Each party see issues from their own perspectives, but not much common ground achieved. General public has grown tired of polarized debates, leaving the paid gladiators to endlessly fight their battles.

Oregonians Prefer Balanced Forest Management on Public and Private Lands

Balance For Federal Forestlands

Meeting a wide range of social needs 32%

Growing forests for products people use
29%

Protection of water quality and wildlife habitat
40%

Balance For Private
Forestlands

Protection of water quality and wildlife habitat
41%

Growing forests for products people use
30%

Meeting a wide range of social needs
29%

Davis, Hibbitts, and McCaig, 2001

The Department of Forestry asked Oregonians in 2001 what weight they place on Oregons forests to meet environmental, economic, and social needs. Oregonians said they want a balance of management on both federal and private forestlands.

Collaboration and respect are constructive

Common Ground

Markets are means

Learn, work with nature

Governments set standards

Science informs choices

Everyone has ideas

Locals know a lot

Laws give direction

The other half of Dean Salwassers concept. If we work together we can achieve common ground and our diverse perspectives can help us build better solutions.

Sustainability is a Unifying Theme that Resonates with the Public

Sustainable forest management

means . . .

Forest resources are used, developed, and protected at a rate and in a manner that enables people to meet their current environmental, economic, and social needs, and also provides that future generations can meet their own needs (based on ORS 184.421)

The definition of sustainability is internationally recognized and was added to Oregon state statutes in 2001.

How does one attain sustainability?

The BOF will promote a public dialogue with Oregonians in determining how to sustainably manage forestlands in Oregon for current and future generationsRequires a balance among the environmental, economic and social values provided by our forests.There is no formula, Oregonians must define what balance works for us!

The framework is the easy part. The harder part is how Oregonians will work together to define what sustainable forest management means to us. How best can be meet our environmental, economic, and social needs? One purpose of the 2003 FPFO is to promote this public discussion.

Sustainability is a journey, not a destination

Decision-making comes to be understood for what it has always been, finding our way through partially undiscovered country rather than charting a scientifically determined course to a known end point.

Sustainability is about maintaining the well-being of the combined ecological[economical]societal system. This requires that its self organizing processes and structures be maintained. This will happen naturally if we maintain the context for self organization in ecological systems, which in turn will maintain context for continued well-being of [economic and] societal systems

--Kay, Boyle, and Pond, 2001.

Purpose not to debate FPFO strategiers. Decided by Board through public process in 2003. Boards belief that all forests issues fall within these strategies. All Oregonians values respected.

Environmental

Economic

Social

Sustainability is not a unique target There must be a range of acceptable routes to sustainability The actual route taken is ultimately a political decision The outer bounds of sustainability are long-term policy considerations Choices on the preferable course of action are shorter-term We often confuse the two Dont try to address simultaneously

Long-term outer bounds

of sustainability

Short-term sustainable

course of action

Unsustainable course of action

Remember todays workshop is part of a larger project looking at all aspects of sustainable forestry.

Multiple-use emphasis forests Mostly state, tribal, some family, some federal

Production emphasis forests Mostly forest industry, some state, tribal, family

Residential value emphasis forests

Forests where people live

Social Benefits

Economic Benefits

Sustainability

Environmental Benefits

Nature emphasis forests

Parks, wilderness, wild areas Mostly federal lands,

some state, tribal and private

Important to understanding one of the boards value statements is that all forests do not have to be managed the same way to be managed sustainably. If fact, Oregon has the advantage of having very diverse forest types and landowner objectives that can help us to meet our environmental, economic and social needs more efficiently and effectively.

Dean Salwasser has sorted these different forest ownership roles into four general groups:

Nature Emphasis forest, which are primarily found on federal lands. . .

Multiple-use Emphasis forests, which can be found to some extent on all type of ownerships . . .

Production Emphasis forests, primarily in private ownership that produce the many timber and non-timber forest products we want as consumers and . . .

Residential Value Forests which play a unique role in that they are the forests most of us have the most frequent interaction with.

Forestry Program for Oregon Strategies:

Strategy A: Promote a sound legal system, effective and adequately funded government, leading-edge research, and sound economic policies.

Strategy B: Ensure that Oregon's forests provide diverse social and economic outputs and benefits valued by the public in a fair, balanced, and efficient manner.

Strategy C: Maintain and enhance the productive capacity of Oregon's forests to improve the economic well-being of Oregon's communities.

Strategy D: Protect, maintain, and enhance the soil and water resources of Oregon's forests.

Strategy E: Contribute to the conservation of diverse native plant and animal populations and their habitats in Oregon's forests.

Strategy F: Protect, maintain, and enhance the health of Oregon's forest ecosystems, watersheds, and airsheds within a context of natural disturbance and active management.

Strategy G: Enhance carbon storage in Oregon's forests and forest products.

Purpose not to debate FPFO strategiers. Decided by Board through public process in 2003. Boards belief that all forests issues fall within these strategies. All Oregonians values respected.

Oregonians Ranking of Strategies Used in the 2003 Forestry Program for Oregon

Davis, Hibbitts & McCaig

D

C

F

A

E

F

G

FPFO Strategy

To close the discussion ask the audience to rank the seven FPFO strategies in order of importance and then compare the results with the statewide and regional 2001 polling results.

Sustainable Forest Management Indicator Advisory Committee Charge:

Recommend sustainable forest management indicators to the Board of ForestrySolicit public input on desired future outcomes for the recommended indicatorsRecommend desired future outcomes for the indicators to the Board of ForestryAdvise the State Forester on future Forest Assessment Project work

Recommendations to the Board. They will make the final decision, but success will depend on consensus and partnerships.

Workshop will build on work done by the advisory committee at its first meeting.

Sustainable Forest Management Indicator Advisory Committee

Private landownersPublic land managersEnvironmental organizationsSustainability organizationsState and federal policy makersTribal representationOther state natural resources agencies

Recommendations to the Board. They will make the final decision, but success will depend on consensus and partnerships.

Workshop will build on work done by the advisory committee at its first meeting.

Indicators mean:

Parameters that measure specific quantitative and qualitative attributes and help monitor trends in the sustainability of forest management over timeMethodology, source, format, scale, timing, and units of data must be determined for each indicator

This is the model ODF and other state agencies are using for performance measurement development. Ideally ODF will develop a mix of efficiency (output) and effectiveness (outcome) measures. At least one measure needs to address customer satisfaction.

INPUT/OUTPUT/OUTCOME
LOGIC MODEL

High-Level Outcomes Measure progress toward Forestry Program for Oregon Strategies

Agency Goals Intermediate goals that build to High-Level Outcomes

Outputs Products or Services

Intermediate Outcomes Portion of H-L Outcome under your control

Objectives Methods to achieve goals (Programs)

High Level Goal (Sustainable Forest Management)

Inputs

Time / $

Agency Performance Measures

Sustainable Forest Management Indicators

To explain that we have to discuss logic models for a moment

The state of Oregon uses an input/output/outcome model with a slight variation of intermediate outcomes

Model

Why are Indicators Important?

Shape social understanding of forests and the forces that influence them

Places natural management on par with economic indicators that leaders and the public will understand

A framework to coordinate natural resource inventory, assessment, planning, and coordination

Provide citizens interested in forests with a tool to encourage society to address the needs of forests

Helps to repair hopelessly fragmented administrative landscape

Monitoring Data

Key Indicators

Public

Discourse

Policy Planning and Management

Do we really want the public understanding and involvement or is that just lip service to further our agenda?

67 international indicators evaluated in the 2000 Oregon First Approximation Report and the 2003 and 2009 National Reports on Sustainable Forests

20 to 25 Oregon sustainable forest management indicators

Oregon Benchmarks

Measure progress through the use of indicators

Collect data on a set of sustainable forest management indicators Large enough to provide the most important information needed to address the seven Forestry Program for Oregon strategies.Small enough to allow efficient assessment and tradeoff analysis to be completed in a timely fashion for policy analysis. Form coalitions with other agencies and organizations to create a common language used to communicate about forest conditions and monitor trends over time.

Characteristics of good indicators

RelevantUnderstandablePractical and feasibleMeasurableFeasibleSufficient to the purposeSensitive to changeScale appropriateCompatibleScientific meritLinkable to environmental, economic, and social models, forecasting, and information systems

Choosing indicators:

Forestry Program for Oregon strategies clarify priorities/but indicators needed to measure progress and provide a sustainability narrativeRecommend no more than three indicators per strategyWhat gets measured gets managedif you measure the wrong things you will manage the wrong thingsBalance subjective and objective measuresDont just settle for readily available data coming attractions is OK

--based on The Price of Government by Osborne and Hutchinson

Oregonians Values

Meaningful Indicators

Indicators must be aligned with public values or public will feel it has not been heard and will counter with theie own indicators

Indicators that require a book two answer are as useful as something the public can grasp in two seconds.

People will not respond to indicators and numbers, but they will respond if indicators can tell a story.

OFRI, 2002

DH&M; Slide *

Q8. Concern About Forest-Related Issues

(Percentage Ranking Very or Somewhat Concerned)

100%

0%

79%

81%

81%

84%

84%

84%

87%

91%

Urban sprawl onto forestland

Diseased or insect damaged

trees

Relationship between forest

industry & environmental groups

Soil erosion/landslides

Wildfire danger

Losing forestland to

development and other uses

Fish and wildlife habitat

Water quality

Step 1: What to Measure

Step 2: Desired Outcomes for Indicators

Montreal Process Soil Indicators

Area and percent of forestland with significant erosionArea and percent of forestland managed primarily for protective functions (e.g.,Watersheds, Flood Protection, Avalanche Protection, Riparian Zones)Area and percent of forestland with significantly diminished soil organic matter and/or changes in other soil chemical propertiesArea and percent of forest land with significant compaction or change in soil physical properties resulting from human activitiesArea and percent of forest land experiencing an accumulation of persistent toxic substances

Advisory Committee Discussions

Soils a High Priority Component of Strategy DIndicator concepts considered:Ability of soils to grow and retain vegetationErosion ratesSusceptibility to erodeCompaction and changes in physical propertiesChanges in chemical and biological propertiesOrganic matter

Advisory Committee Discussions

Most interest in soil productivity, erosion, and roadsRoad density alone not usefulLandslide difficult to track, episodicNational long-term site productivity work very soil type dependentVegetation growth rates may not be a good surrogate for soil productivityFIA soil data not consistent over timeDifficulty in detecting real changes from sampling variabilitySoils notoriously heterogeneous across short distancesBulk density and erosion useful once baselines are establishedSoil quality index?? (19 chemical and physical properties)Agreed to develop and consider roads survey indicatorSoil productivity a developmental indicator concept

Draft Indicator: Forest road risks to soil and water resources

Statistical sample of all Oregon forest roadsSystematic on-the-ground surveysTen-year cycle; work done through contracted servicesDesigned to consistently evaluate current conditions and also near-term future road conditions Metrics:Percent of road system disconnected from the stream networkPercent of stream crossings on fish streams providing passagePercent of stream crossings with a low risk of washoutPercent of road system in non-critical or less critical locationsPercent of road system with active landslides or surface erosionLand area in non-forest condition (road subgrade plus cutslope)

Use indicator information for. . .

Forestry Program for Oregon implementation and future revisions 2010 Forest Assessment Report and SymposiumFoundation for federal land management planning, 2009 National Report, RPA assessment

For more information . . .

www.oregonforestry.org

Follow links to Sustainable Forestry Indicators

OREGON BOARD OF FORESTRY

AD HOC SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT INDICATOR

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ORIENTATION BINDER

SUSTAINABLE

FOREST

MANAGEMENT

Environmental, Economic,

Social

Legal/Institutional/

Economic Framework

Soil and

Water

Ecosystem

Health

Productive

Capacity

Diverse Plants

and Animals

Carbon

Storage

Social &

Economic

Benefits

Forest

Structure

Ecosystem

Diversity

Legal

Populations

Available

Forestland

Natural

Processes

Harvest vs.

Sustainable

Growing

Stock

Water

Quality

Invasive

Species

Carbon

Budget

Erosion

Investment

Carbon

Pool

Production/

Consumption

Wood Products

Cultural/

Spiritual

Values

Economic

Employment/

Community

Needs

Aquatic

Life

Air

Pollution

Monitoring

R & D

DH&M; Slide 8

Q8. Concern About Forest-Related Issues

79%

81%

81%

84%

84%

84%

87%

91%

Urban sprawl onto forestland

Diseased or insect damaged

trees

Relationship between forest

industry & environmental groups

Soil erosion/landslides

Wildfire danger

Losing forestland to

development and other uses

Fish and wildlife habitat

Water quality

(Percentage Ranking Very or Somewhat Concerned)

100%0%

INPUT/OUTPUT/OUTCOME

LOGIC MODEL

High

-

Level Outcomes

Measure

progress toward

Forestry Program

for Oregon

Strategies

Agency Goals

Intermediate

goals that build to High

-

Level

Outcomes

Outputs

Products

or Services

Intermediate Outcomes

Portion of H

-

L Outcome

under your control

Objectives

Methods to

achieve goals (Programs)

High Level Goal (Sustainable Forest Management)

Inputs

Time / $

Agency

Performance

Measures

Sustainable Forest

Management

Indicators