2010 Sustainability Report USDA

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
United States Department of Agriculture
National Report on
Sustainable Forests—2010
FS-979 • June 2011

United States
Department National Report on
of Agriculture
Forest Service Sustainable Forests—
FS-979
June 2011
2010
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation,
genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance
program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communica-
tion of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 (voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider
and employer.
Letter From the Chief
I am pleased to release the forests have a major role to play in helping to mitigate climate
National Report on Sustainable change, a fact that is well documented in the report.
Forests—2010. The report
The economic and social environment surrounding forests
provides a comprehensive
is also changing rapidly. The data presented in the report
picture of current conditions and
indicate ongoing shifts in where and how we produce our wood
trends in our Nation’s forests, its
products and the emergence of new markets for ecosystem
forest industries, and its forest
services. The data also provide information on the broad array
communities. The Forest Service
of tangible products and uses through which Americans obtain
is committed to the sustainable
value from forests on a daily basis. These changes bring with
management of forests through
them new opportunities for economic development in rural
collaboration and foresight
areas but also challenges for individuals and communities in
based on the firm foundation of good data. This report is
areas facing job losses and production cutbacks. Realizing
designed to meet this end in the belief that better data lead to
these opportunities and facing these challenges constitute an
better dialogue and, thereby, better decisions.
important part of sustainability.
One of the report’s key findings is the fact that the United
In order to ensure the sustainability of America’s forests in the
States is richly endowed with forests, 751 million acres to be
long term, land managers need to work across jurisdictions and
exact. That area has remained remarkably stable over the last
land-use types, viewing forested landscapes as an integrated
50 years, and the amount of wood in these forests is increasing.
whole, both ecologically and socially. This is the essence of
At the same time, however, forests in the United States face
an all-lands approach to resource management. The data and
a number of threats, ranging from fragmentation and loss of
analysis found in this report are designed to contribute to this
forest integrity due to development to an alarming increase in
effort.
the area and severity of forest disturbances. The report finds,
for example, that the incidence of insect-induced tree mortality
has increased three-fold in the last decade. In the coming years,
climate change could substantially increase the damages and
uncertainties associated with these threats. Not coincidentally, Thomas Tidwell
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 i

ii National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
Acknowledgments
A team of experts is required to prepare a report of this scope the contributions of the criterion team leaders and individual
and depth. The national report was prepared by a core team indicator authors and coauthors are recognized there.
composed of Guy Robertson, Peter Gaulke, Ruth McWilliams,
The Roundtable on Sustainable Forests (RSF) provided support
Sarah LaPlante, and Richard Guldin. Members of the team
and encouragement throughout the process of planning and
were current and former employees of the Forest Service, an
developing this report. Led by non-Federal cochairs Jim Finley
agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
(Penn State University) and Dick Brinker (Auburn University)
Criterion team leaders each provided leadership to a team and Federal cochairs Joel Holtrop and Jim Hubbard (Forest
of indicator specialists in preparing the individual indicator Service), the RSF provided critical feedback that helped to shape
reports and criteria summaries: the content of this report. Particular thanks are due to Round-
� Biological Diversity: Steve Shifley table participants from the Communications and Outreach
Working Group, led by Graham Cox (New York Audubon
� Productive Capacity: W. Brad Smith
Society) and Eric Norland (USDA National Institute on Food
� Forest Health: Frank Sapio and Agriculture) for the group’s help in organizing and hosting
� Soil and Water: Mike Amacher the three public review workshops for the draft report. In
addition, the contributions of the Meridian Institute, especially
� Climate Change and Global Carbon Cycles: Chris Woodall
Sarah Walen and Shawn Walker, are recognized for facilitating
� Socioeconomic Benefits: Ken Skog RSF meetings and workshops. They and their colleagues have
� Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework: Steverson helped organize productive meetings and synthesize comments
Moffat and Fred Cubbage from the workshops, which were of immeasurable help.
In addition to the work of the criterion team leaders, the Two members of the Forest Service International Programs
following individuals (including some criterion team leaders) staff and one from the U.S. Department of State made substan-
authored or coauthored one or more supporting technical tive contributions to the refinement of the Montreal Process
documents for the indicators and the two-page summaries: criteria and indicators following the 2003 report: Sandra
� Biological Diversity: Steve Shifley, Curtis H. Flather, Kurt Cantler and Shelley Gardner (Forest Service) and Kathy Karr-
Riitters, Carolyn Sieg, and W. Brad Smith Colque (State Department). Their interactions with experts
from other countries helped us focus better on the key issues.
� Productive Capacity: Sonja Oswalt and W. Brad Smith
� Forest Health: Jeff Mai and Jim Ellenwood Midway through the 7-year process of developing this report,
three stalwarts of U.S. reporting on sustainability criteria and
� Soil and Water: Michael Amacher and Rick Swanson
indicators retired: Dr. Stephanie Caswell (State Department),
� Climate Change and Global Carbon Cycles: Chris Woodall, Robert Hendricks (Forest Service), and Ruth McWilliams
Ken Skog, Jim Smith, and Charles H. Perry. (Forest Service). They were pioneers in how reporting on
� Socioeconomic Benefits: Ken Skog, James Howard, Susan criteria and indicators could be used to improve natural
Alexander, Ken Cordell, Marla Emery, Evan Mercer, Shela resource monitoring programs, policy analyses, policymaking,
Mou, Kristen Magis, and Maureen McDonough and national accountability for sustainable forest management.
� Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework: Steverson They taught us all a great deal, and the globe’s temperate and
Moffatt, Fred Cubbage, Kathleen McGinley, and W. Brad boreal forests are in better condition today because of their
Smith dedicated efforts.
Although each indicator is condensed in the report, extensive A great deal of work goes into the actual physical production
technical supporting documentation was developed for most of a document such as this. Sonja Beavers provided critical
indicators. That detail is contained on the report Web site, and assistance in editing and layout. Without her help, this report
would not have been possible.
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 iii

iv National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
Preface
This report is issued at a critical moment in time. The year 2011 In addition to this report, several companion reports focusing
is the International Year of the Forest—a time when people on related information are being prepared. The Roundtable on
around the world are encouraged to pay special attention to the Sustainable Forests is developing an Action Plan based on the
importance of forest ecosystems and the goods and ecological findings in this document. A group of experts on America’s
services they provide to sustain societies and economies. With tropical forests is developing a companion report on the condi-
the many threats facing forests today, this report highlights tions and trends of tropical forests so a more complete picture
conditions and trends of forests in the United States. of all the United States’ forests is available. A Web site being
developed will serve as a repository for much of the technical
This report is unique from three perspectives. First, it is the
information upon which the individual indicators reports are
second U.S. national report; the first was released in 2003. Thus,
based. Some States and counties are also preparing similar
the information in this report enables the reader to evaluate the
reports using criteria and indicators to report on the situation
progress recently made by U.S. forest land owners and managers
at those spatial scales. As a result of these efforts, a great deal
toward reaching the goal of sustainable forests in this country.
more information is available today for policy analysts and
Second, this report is the United States’ contribution to the set policymakers at national, regional, State, and county levels than
of reports produced by the 12 countries that are members of the was available a decade ago. The 2003 report stimulated most of
Montréal Process Working Group (MPWG) on the Conserva- this additional reporting activity; this report is expected to add
tion and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal momentum to additional endeavors at multiple spatial scales.
Forests. The MPWG is a voluntary, nonlegally binding group
During the public review and comment period on the draft
of countries that have agreed to use a common set of criteria
report, a number of comments suggested that this report needed
and indicators for tracking each country’s progress toward their
to be reorganized to separate the more data-rich indicator pages
shared vision of sustainable forests. Visit http://mpci.org for
from the analysis of the data. Therefore, this final report is
more information about the MPWG.
organized into two parts. Part I presents analyses and findings.
Third, this report is just one component of the reporting process Part II contains two-page reports for each of the 64 indicators
that the United States is using to report on forest conditions and of forest sustainability used in the Montréal Process along
trends and the progress being made toward sustainability. Sup- with summaries for each of the 7 general criteria under which
porting this document are a number of more detailed subsidiary these indicators are organized. We hope that this reformatting
reports on the individual indicators that provide a great deal of will improve the flow of presenting the analyses and findings,
additional information in more detail than could be included as reviewers desired, while still making it simple to find the
here. These supporting technical documents are available at information for individual criteria and indicators.
http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustainability.
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 v

vi National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
Executive Summary
Purpose � The number and complexity of values and demands society

places on forests are increasing.
The United States is richly endowed with forests, and their
care and conservation have been a national concern for more � Wood products production is declining relative to growing
than a century. This report, the National Report on Sustainable consumption, with increasing imports filling the gap.
Forests—2010, provides data and analysis aimed at addressing � Forest management activity is declining in many areas as
this concern by enhancing dialogue and decisions in pursuit forest products firms divest themselves of timber lands.
of the goal of forest sustainability. The report relies on the
Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators (MP C&I) for Forest � Sustained capacity and willingness to manage forests
Sustainability to organize and present data relevant to U.S. sustainably are evidenced by a growing number of public-
forests and their sustainability across ecological, social, and private collaborations on projects devoted to landscape-scale
economic dimensions. It is linked to the forest sustainability conservation.
reporting processes of the other countries participating in the
Montréal Process, and it is also linked to domestic efforts at
local and regional scales that use criteria and indicators to help Overarching Issues
ensure the sustainability of their forests.
The following three overarching issues emerged from the
A similar report, also using the MP C&I, was published in 2004, analysis of the data and from the extensive comments received
and the release of the current report marks another milestone from the public—issues that promise to be of crucial impor-
in our continuing efforts to build the knowledge base needed to tance to forests and their management in the coming years.
sustainably manage forested ecosystems in the United States.
1. The loss of forest lands and working forests. The gross
statistics on forest area mask substantial fragmentation
and outright losses in forest land at the regional level,
Key findings particularly in areas adjacent to growing urban areas or
Are our forests sustainable? This complex question has no where recreational development is prominent. Fragmentation
easy yes or no answers. On the whole, no evidence suggests and loss is further compounded by the sale of forest lands to
that we are “using up” our forests. In fact, the total area of firms and individuals whose primary focus is not active for-
forests has been stable, and the volume of wood found on them est management for timber production, forest conservation,
increasing. But a number of issues cause significant concern; or other purposes. With the loss of an active management
they range from regional forest fragmentation and loss to focus and the revenue streams that often accompany it, the
widespread increases in forest insect infestation and other survival of these forests and their associated ecosystem
disturbances. Potential changes in climate compound the risks services is in question.
and uncertainties associated with these issues. The following
2. Forests, climate change, and bioenergy. Climate change
additional key findings have emerged from the information
presents profound challenges and opportunities for forests
presented in the report:
and forestry in the United States. We are already seeing
� At 751 million acres, forest area in the United States remains altered patterns of forest disturbance associated with
stable. changes in temperature, precipitation, and insect activity.
The resulting changes in the distribution of forest cover and
� Fragmentation and loss of forest land are occurring in many species distribution will play out over the coming decades.
regions and localities, owing mostly to human development. At the same time, forests serve as a major carbon sink with
� Levels of forest disturbance are rising, including a three-fold the potential to further sequester large amounts of carbon
increase in insect-induced mortality relative to the previous from the atmosphere, and they may also serve as a major
report.
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 vii

source of carbon neutral, renewable energy in the future. To � Innovative market mechanisms that account for and generate
the extent that these potentials are realized, carbon seques- revenues from the various ecosystem services forests
tration and bioenergy production could radically alter the provide are sorely needed.
ecological and economic landscape of forest management in
� Carbon sequestration and wood-based bioenergy should be
our country.
vigorously pursued, but not at the cost of other aspects of
3. Forest health and disturbance patterns. The elevated forest sustainability.
levels of forest disturbance documented in this report prom-
ise to profoundly shape both our forest landscapes and the
ways we manage them. In many areas, particularly the West, Content and Structure of the
confronting the complex causes and effects of disturbance
will remain a dominant, if not the dominant, consideration in
Report
forest management and policy for the foreseeable future. More than 30 Forest Service scientists, senior staff, and
outside collaborators contributed to the production of this
report. Through an extensive process of comment and review
The Path Forward organized by the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests, the
report incorporates the views of a broad range of individuals
In response to the challenges and opportunities these issues
representing the community of interest surrounding forests and
present, the report makes a number of general policy recom-
forest sustainability in our country today.
mendations. First and foremost is the need for robust and
engaged dialogue about forests and forest sustainability at The report is divided into two main parts. Part I discusses the
all levels of society. This need is in keeping with the core concepts underlying forest sustainability, summarizes major
philosophy underlying the report: better data leads to better issues and conditions affecting U.S. forests, describes numer-
dialogue and, thereby, to better decisions. Another general ous sustainability efforts under way at local and regional levels,
recommendation is that solutions are often best accomplished and identifies the implications of the report’s findings for policy
at the landscape scale, spanning different types of land uses and action.
and involving collaboration among different stakeholders.
Part II contains the data reports addressing each of the 7 criteria
This recommendation embodies an all-lands approach to forest
and 64 indicators in the MP C&I. The data reports provide
conservation. Other recommendations include the following:
the data foundation for the analyses found in Part I and are,
� Flexible, adaptive management techniques that work with by themselves, important resources for specific data; general
natural processes need to be continually developed to meet information; and references related to forest ecosystems, their
the challenges posed by climate change and growing levels current conditions, and their sustainability.
of forest disturbance.
viii National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

Contents
Letter from the Chief.............................................................................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................................................................iii
Preface................................................................................................................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................................vii
Part I. Background, Context, and Summary Analyses

Chapter 1. Setting the Stage: The Context for Reporting on Sustainable Forests............................................................................. I-1
Chapter 2. What the Data Tell Us.................................................................................................................................................... I-11
Chapter 3. Broadening and Deepening Our Commitment to Sustainability.................................................................................... I-23
Chapter 4. Looking Ahead to the Future......................................................................................................................................... I-37
Part II. Data Presentation

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................... II-1
Criterion 1. Conservation of Biological Diversity.......................................................................................................................... II-15
Criterion 2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems....................................................................................... II-33
Criterion 3. Maintenance of Ecosystem Health and Vitality.......................................................................................................... II-45
Criterion 4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources..................................................................................... II-51
Criterion 5. Maintenance of Forest Contribution to Global Carbon Cycles................................................................................... II-59
Criterion 6. Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Multiple Socioeconomic Benefits To Meet the Needs of Societies...... II-67
Criterion 7. Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management................. II-107
Appendixes
References.........................................................................................................................................................................................R-1
Glossary............................................................................................................................................................................................G-1
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 ix

x National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
Part I.
Background, Context, and Summary Analyses

Chapter 1
Setting the Stage:

The Context for Reporting on Sustainable Forests
and their actions. What is different today from Roosevelt’s time

Why We Care About Sustainable is the advent of global influences, such as climate change and
Forests air pollution and worldwide commerce, whose effects are felt
Forests perform many critical ecological roles. They are the everywhere. Mirroring the sentiments expressed by President
lungs for the planet, cleaners of the air, catchers of rainfall and Roosevelt in 1910, Tom Vilsack, the current Secretary of
protectors of soils, filters for streams, and homes to countless Agriculture, stated, “A healthy and prosperous America relies
species. on the health of our natural resources, and particularly our
forests.”2 As a society, we should collectively take good care of
Beyond their ecological roles, forests are the foundation of all of our forests so they, in turn, can take good care of us.
societies, providing places to build communities, raise families,
enjoy outdoor activities, and nourish the spirit. Forests are
also the foundations of economies, creating job opportunities, Reporting on Sustainable Forests
supplying environmental services such as clean water, and
providing awe-inspiring natural splendors for tourists and The first National Report on Sustainable Forests—2003
residents alike. reported on the state of forests in the United States using a
set of 7 criteria and 67 indicators developed by the Montréal
Through sustainable management, forests can contribute to the Process Working Group.3 This current report is the second in
resilience of ecosystems, societies, and economies while also the series, and continues to track our Nation’s progress.
safeguarding biological diversity and providing a broad range
of goods and services for present and future generations. It provides fresh, factual information along with some context
to inform and inspire dialogue about sustainability and our
Just as in President Theodore Roosevelt’s era, our current ac- Nation’s forests. Improvements in inventory and monitoring
tions are shaping the future that our grandchildren will inherit. programs have yielded fresh data, and recent research has
Although the pressures facing our Nation’s natural resources led to the development of new models and analysis methods.
have no doubt grown in number and complexity since the dawn Expanding and emerging partnerships are providing new and
of the 20th century, the fundamentals of sustaining forests for more relevant information.
future generations have not changed much. The choices that
people make determine the sustainability of forests. This report is divided into two main parts. Part I contains
background information, summary analyses, and policy
Today, people suggestions. Part II is devoted to the presentation of factual
The Nation behaves well if it treats the depend on forests information and analysis specific to each of the 7 criteria and
natural resources as assets which it as much as they 64 indicators of the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators
must turn over to the next generation ever have. The (MP C&I) for forest sustainability. In this fashion, we have
increased, and not impaired, in value. converse is also separated the summary and interpretation portions of the report
Theodore Roosevelt, true—forests de- from the more factual and data-intensive portions.
26th President of the United States1
pend on people
1
Roosevelt, T.R. 1910 (August 29). Speech before the Colorado Livestock Association. Denver, Colorado. 1910. Cited in Roosevelt (1910).
2
See Vilsack (2009) for transcript of speech (http://www.usda.gov/2009/08/0382.xml).
3
See USDA Forest Service (2004). Copies of the 2003 report are available electronically at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/.
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–1

Chapter 1 sets the stage and provides some context for the economy—are commonly referred to as “the triple bottom
information provided in subsequent chapters. This includes line.” When influences and interactions between the threes
a discussion of the core concept of sustainability and how it spheres of the triple bottom line are properly accounted for,
has been reflected in the MP C&I. The major driving forces natural resource decisions have a better chance of achieving
currently underlying change in forested ecosystems are also sustainability. To be truly sustainable, natural resource deci-
indentified in this chapter along with the major challenges sions should account for social, economic, and environmental
confronting forest managers in their quest for sustainability. considerations. Although we can think and talk about sustain-
The chapter concludes with a more detailed description of the ability in different ways, the “triple bottom line” is being used
content and structure of this report and the Forest Service’s increasingly as a shorthand way to describe an organization’s
sustainability reporting effort as a whole. commitment to sustainability.
The intensive public dialogue spawned by the release of The relationship between the environment, economy, and
the 2003 report has led to an evolution in our collective society was illustrated in the 2003 report with three intersecting
understanding of “forest sustainability.” This evolution was circles (fig. 1). Earlier thinking about sustainability, (shown on
reflected and reinforced by the extensive dialogue and review the left side of figure 1 and referred to as Weak Sustainability)
process surrounding the production of the current report. envisioned the environmental, social, and economic realms
Throughout this time, appreciation of the broader portfolio of as intersecting, yet separate, parts of a system. More recently,
values derived from the Nation’s forests has continued to grow. thinking about the relationships between these three realms has
Because the sustainability concept has been refined and the evolved, and today, the depiction of sustainability shown on the
list of values has expanded, we now turn to describing those right-hand side of figure I-1 (Strong Sustainability) is the one
changes to set the stage for what follows in this chapter. adopted by this report.
This updated model reflects the understanding that the

environmental realm is the foundation of strong sustainability
Defining and Modeling because the environment provides natural goods and services
Sustainability that cannot be obtained through any other means. Human
society cannot exist without the environment, which provides
Since the publication of the 2003 report, the Federal Govern-
the basic necessities of life: air, water, food, energy, and raw
ment has adopted a definition of the term “sustainable.” As do
materials. The human economy depends on people and social
most definitions of sustainability, this definition recognizes
interaction. The core concept of strong sustainability is that the
three arenas in which the effects of natural resource decisions
benefits of nature are irreplaceable and that the entire economy
are closely linked. These arenas—environment, society, and
Figure I-1. Triple Bottom Line: interconnected and interdependent benefits.
Environment Economy
Economy
Society
Society
Environment
Weak Sustainability Strong Sustainability

Source: Maureen Hart—Sustainable Measures
I–2 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

is reliant on society, which in turn is entirely dependent on the have demonstrated that stands of trees are also quite important
environment. This emphasizes the interdependencies between in landscapes that are dominated by agricultural and/or urban
our society, our economy, and the natural environment. land uses. Indeed, the pattern of forest patches in landscapes
dominated by other land uses may make those stands of trees
Today’s most pressing forest issues (e.g., loss of ecosystem
even more important ecologically and socially than equivalent
services, loss of working forests, fire danger and hazardous
acreages of trees in forest-dominated landscapes. Those
fuels, increasing demands for woody biomass to produce
working toward sustainable solutions should take into consid-
bioenergy, adapting forest management to potential climate
eration the conditions and relationships between the forest and
changes, etc.) have strongly interconnected and interdependent
nonforest parts of the environment, along with the social and
economic, social, and environmental linkages. Decisions made
economic spheres that depend on environmental conditions.
regarding these issues will widely affect areas of the economy,
Today, this is called an “all lands” approach to sustainability.
society, and environment beyond those directly related to
forests, which suggests that these pressing issues cannot be
resolved solely within the forest sector or by actions taken Montréal Process Criteria and
solely within the boundaries of the forest. Solutions will require Indicators as a Common Framework
dialog among a broader set of interests, and it will require for Understanding Sustainable Forests
policy implementation in the economic and/or social spheres
For society to understand the effects of complex problems
in order to improve conditions in the environmental sphere.
on the environment and economy, and to become motivated
This activity needs to occur not just within forests, but across
to make choices that favor sustainability goals, a method is
landscapes that include towns, ranches, and farms as well.
needed to communicate current forest conditions and important
Developing implementable and sustainable solutions to these
changes more clearly and explicitly to diverse interests. The
issues will require the involvement and support of a diverse
Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators (MP C&I) provide a
group of interests, bridging not only different sectors but also
common framework to describe, monitor, assess, and report
spatial scales and generations.
on forest trends at the national level and on the progress being
made toward sustainable forest management. They also provide
Sustainability Across Landscapes and a common understanding within and across stakeholder com-
Through Time munities of what is meant by sustainable forest management.
In the early part of the 20th century, foresters viewed their An informed, aware, and engaged public is indispensable to
work as managing “stands” of trees, commonly defined as (usu- promoting sustainable forest management, and these criteria
ally small) groupings of trees sharing some common feature, and indicators help provide the informational foundation for
such as the same soil type or trees of the same species mixture this engagement.
or the same age. Forest managers attempted to plan sequences The seven Montréal Process criteria reflect a holistic triple-
of stand-level activities to provide an even flow of goods and bottom-line approach. No single criterion represents an adequate
services over planning horizons stretching out two or three depiction of sustainability. No priority or order is implied in the
decades. They paid little attention to the pattern being created order of the seven criteria, nor of their associated indicators.
on the land by sequences of activities. During the latter half of
the 20th century, it became clear that certain types of problems The seven criteria represent a common set of values deemed the
were not being addressed by segmented pattern-insensitive ap- most important dimensions of the holistic set of values created
proaches to forest management. By the early 1990s, researchers by forests. In this way, the seven criteria help create a common
had concluded that the effects of forest management needed to language for discussing sustainability. The seven criteria create
be evaluated over both a range of spatial scales beyond the stand a platform for launching dialog to advance these shared values.
level to include watersheds of various sizes, landscapes, and Over time and through increasing use and scrutiny, this platform
regions; and in light of ecologically relevant time scales (Brooks has proven to be solid. Since 2003, the seven criteria have not
and Grant 1992). Although these conclusions were called “new changed. In fact, other criteria and indicator development efforts
perspectives” back then, today they are mainstream thinking. (some of which are highlighted in chapter 3) have looked to the
MP C&I, and its criteria in particular, for guidance.
Although landscapes and intergenerational timeframes are
now widely accepted today as the appropriate spatial and The MP C&I have undergone extensive scrutiny during the past
temporal scales for thinking about sustainability, the concept decade from members of the scientific and policy communities
of landscape is still too often limited to landscapes dominated and from practitioners working at different spatial scales,
by forests. Since the 2003 report was released, public dialogs ranging from the international to the local level. This scrutiny

is evident in Part II, which discusses in detail the rationale As national-level assessment tools, the MP C&I provide a basis
behind each of the seven criteria and how individual indicators for reporting on all forests in the country, including public
have been revised. In Part II, readers can explore how the and private forests, and natural forests and plantation forests.
scientific body of knowledge has been structured around the Although they are not performance standards nor are they
MP C&I. This framework organizes the numerous data sources designed to assess sustainability at the management unit level,
and scientific efforts under way that are attempting to measure the MP C&I do provide a framework for developing policies,
the state of our Nation’s forests. In doing so, it provides a plans, and inventories at national, regional, and landscape
hierarchical structure to the science of sustainability. Individual scales, and they can serve as a model for monitoring and
indicators provide insight into specific criteria, and the seven reporting on other natural resources, such as rangelands.
criteria, when looked at as a whole, provide a yardstick with
which society can measure its progress toward sustainability goals. New Indicators Since 2003
After the initial round of 12 country reports were released
Montréal Process Criteria For the Conservation and from 2002 to 2004, the Montréal Process member countries
Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal conducted a review of the indicators used, exploring ways to
Forests
refine and improve the relevance and definitions of selected
1. Conservation of biological diversity. indicators. Member countries have always expected that the
2. Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems. indicators should be adaptable: that they would be tested and
3. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality. refined through use and discussion. In the several years after
4. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water the initial round of reports, the MP C&I have evolved through
resources. workshops held by member countries. This report contains 64
5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon indicators, not the 67 that were used in the 2003 report. Some
cycles. of the former indicators were dropped, and some new indicators
6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple have been added. Several indicators have been refined through
socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of societies. substantial rewording to improve clarity. Important exceptions
7. Legal, policy, and institutional framework. are those indicators for Criterion 7. Revisions to Criterion 7
indicators were agreed on in November 2008, but that was too
late to use them in this 2010 reporting cycle. A complete listing
Although many MP indicators are quantitative in nature, some of indicator changes can be found in Part II.
are qualitative or descriptive. Some indicators can be readily
measured (e.g., percent of forest cover), and others may require
the collection of new or additional data, the establishment of Driving Forces and
systematic sampling, or even basic research (e.g., Indicator
6.44, “the importance of forests to people”).
Contemporary Challenges
Affecting Sustainable Forests
When indicators
are measured Today, many of the major pressures on forests are arising from
Excerpt From Quebec Declaration
periodically over outside the forest sector. Climate change, globalization of
Reaffirm our commitment to imple- economic development and trade, rates of energy consumption,
time, analysts can menting the Montréal Process Criteria
report on both and Indicators as an important means
and population increases are all contemporary examples. These
current conditions of national monitoring, assessing and “driving forces” are resulting in profound effects to forested
and recent trends reporting. ecosystems and the social and economic systems associated
that are relevant Québec City, Canada with them. Coming with these effects are significant challenges
to sustainable 22 September 2003 for forest managers, policymakers at all levels, and the citizens
forest management. of our country.
Monitoring and
In this section, we briefly discuss and identify the major driving
reporting over time provides information needed to evaluate
forces and contemporary challenges affecting U.S. forests today.
the country’s policies and progress toward sustainable forest
This discussion will lay the foundation for the summarization
management. This information is essential to making informed
and analysis of C&I information presented in chapter 2 and for
forest policy decisions.
the potential courses for action proposed in chapter 4.

Driving Forces Highlighted expected to affect society and the economy in myriad ways,
none of which are completely understood today. Dealing with
A number of driving forces are largely responsible for the
the risk and uncertainty that result from incomplete knowledge
forest conditions and trends detailed in the data presented in
is an important dimension of our effort to foster resilient and
Part II of this report. These forces, which are often beyond
sustainable forests.
the control of individual land managers, result in both direct
changes in forest conditions and indirect effects on economic
and social conditions within communities where people live.
Globalization
They are also shaping the future of forest management. The re- Nations, people, businesses, and natural resources are becoming
sulting changes are at times subtle and, at other times, dramatic. increasingly interconnected globally, with actual and virtual
Moreover, these driving forces not only affect forests but also movement of people, capital, technology, and goods across
affect all lands and land uses across landscapes. Ultimately, national borders and around the world. Globalization is changing
these forces affect social choices, policies, and management economies and environmental conditions from local to interna
options across many different land uses and economic sectors— tional scales. In the forest products sector, wood and paper
all of which eventually affect sustainability. products grown and manufactured in the United States are
already competing strenuously with products from other parts
This report identifies seven major driving forces affecting of the globe. Economic policies aimed at assuring fair trade
forest sustainability: in global markets may have direct and indirect effects on land
1. Climate change. uses and forest sustainability.
2. Globalization. The emergence of forest and wood products certification

programs in recent years has positively influenced forest
3. Biomass energy demand. sustainability around the globe, which is an example of how
4. Urbanization and related shifts in land use patterns. policymaking simultaneously influences economic markets,
consumer choices, and forest management. But not all the
5. Forest fragmentation and parcelization. effects of globalization are so positive.
6. Loss of working forests. In regard to forestry and wood products, the increasing trade
associated with globalization has resulted in stiffer competition
7. Altered disturbance patterns.
for U.S. producers and shifts in production between regions and
These forces are not independent of one another. They often to other nations. The job losses that go with these shifts, as well
interact, leading to more complex situations, with one exacer- as the possibility that we are exporting environmental harm
bating another. We introduce them here without attempting to to other nations with more lax environmental standards, are
explain all the possible interactions. important questions with both ethical and practical implications,
but they are not explicitly addressed by the indicators used in
Climate Change this 2010 report. The indicators used in the 2015 national report4
will hopefully do a better job of measuring and reporting on the
Research and modeling indicate that changes in climate are
trans-border effects accompanying globalization and shifting
leading to changes in temperature and precipitation patterns,
trade and production.
which in turn are affecting the composition, location, health,
and structure of forests. These changes are also affecting the
composition and patterns of other land covers and land uses Biomass Energy Demand
across a landscape. Sustainable development requires sustainable energy supplies,
particularly fuel for transportation and electricity for commercial
Forests and other ecosystems—along with communities, cul-
and residential uses. Concerns about the long-term security and
tures, and economies—will be impacted by, and adapt to, the
future prices of energy feedstocks have created demands for
effects of climate change. Evidence is emerging that adaptation
alternatives. Woody biomass is an alternative energy feedstock
is already under way. Whether policymakers and land manag-
drawing considerable attention. In the future, the prospects for
ers can assist the adaptation process to reduce undesired effects
increasing our ability to use forest biomass to produce bioen-
remains to be seen. The policies implemented and adaptive
ergy and biofuels may result in increased pressures on forested
management options chosen to combat climate changes are
landscapes.
4
See The Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators. 4th Edition for the latest list of indicators at http://mpci.org.

In 2007, 4.3 percent of all the energy consumed in the United Forest Fragmentation and Parcelization
States came from renewable sources. Forest biomass provided
U.S. forests are becoming increasingly fragmented, especially
more than one-half of that renewable energy, much of it through
in areas close to our cities and where natural scenery or other
longstanding forest industry practices that recycle sawdust
amenities make an area attractive for vacation and retirement
and other waste materials for energy used to run production
home development.5 Fragmentation can reduce the supply of
processes. However, the drive for energy independence and
certain types of ecosystem services that are produced primar-
reductions in carbon emissions from combustion of fossil fuels
ily by large, contiguous tracts of forest, services such as the
could radically change this situation in the near future, resulting
provision of wildlife habitat essential for some species.
in the emergence of new forest-based energy industries and
increased competition among traditional and new forest Parcelization refers to the decreasing average size of privately
products industries. owned forest tracts, resulting from the increasing numbers of
private forest landowners. At smaller parcel sizes, it becomes
Researchers are carefully studying two pathways. The first is
very difficult to actively manage the forest—at either the
generating electricity and the second is converting wood into
individual-owner scale or the landscape scale. As active
liquid transportation fuels. Generating electricity using wood
management at both scales becomes more difficult, the supplies
is simpler because the technology is more mature. Converting
and quality of ecosystem services produced can decline and
woody biomass to transportation fuels, such as cellulosic
achieving sustainable forests and sustainable landscapes
ethanol, is more difficult because commercial-scale processes
becomes more difficult. A complicating factor today, compared
are not yet widely available.
with 20 years earlier, is the fact that forest landowners today
Other potential changes in the energy sector are also possible. typically live farther away from the parcels they own, often in
Two prime examples are the emergence of carbon credit trad- another State. Absentee landowners make it harder for State
ing markets and expansion of renewable energy use require- agencies and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
ments. By increasing the price of fossil fuels or the demand for to foster new market mechanisms to determine the values
renewable energy, these changes could significantly increase associated with forest-based ecosystem services.
the attractiveness of wood as a source of energy, which would
have consequences for both forests and other land uses. Loss of Working Forests
Land with trees provides society with numerous benefits every
Urbanization and Shifting Land Use Patterns day. Ecosystem services are one type of benefit, as are wood
More than 80 percent of the U.S. population now lives in met- and nonwood forest products. Examples of ecosystem services
ropolitan areas of 50,000 or more people. During the past five include providing filtration of rainwater, homes to pollinating
decades, urbanization has continuously encroached on forests insects, and scenic beauty. Society has traditionally considered
adjacent to developed areas (Stein et al. 2007). Economic and many ecosystem services as free benefits from having forests.
social factors, such as discretionary income levels; decisions When forests are neglected, become fragmented, or are lost to
about where to live, shop, and work; and modes of transit, other land uses, however, the amount of ecosystem services
combine to affect local and regional land covers and land uses. they provide often declines. Forests are working each day in
As land shifts between forest, agriculture, and developed uses, support of society by providing these services, but the value of
and as development intensifies, the environmental services that their contributions often goes unrecognized. In this sense, all
the landscape provides also change. forests are “working forests.”
Urbanization also drives change in the relationship between Shifts in land uses represent the most common cause of loss of
citizens and their forests, the values they hold for them and the working forests. When we create new residential and commer-
ways they use them. For most of us, forests have become more cial developments from working forests, we change the types
distant and our dependence upon them less direct. The linkages and amounts of environmental services the land can provide.
between forests and the well-being of people are as important Real estate development patterns also lead to forest fragmenta-
as they ever were, but they are less visible and less of a concern tion and are therefore a driving force in their own right. In
for most of us in our everyday lives. These changes, in turn, the future, we expect real estate development to contribute
influence the political debate surrounding forests and their significantly to the loss of working forests.
management.
5
Openings made in continuous forest cover, such as for vacation homes or wildlife food plots, are sometimes called “perforations” in tree cover and their
impacts considered as part of the impacts of forest fragmentation.

Lack of active management is another factor contributing to others seem to hinder sustainability. Sustainability is not only
the reduction in goods and services from working forests—and about what happens on the landscape to natural resources but
sometimes the loss of the forests themselves. In many areas, also about what happens in the hearts and minds of citizens.
forests need regular management to stay healthy; unhealthy Resource managers and landowners need to recognize the
forests are rarely sustainable. Although short periods of benign importance of values and beliefs, and they need to simultane-
neglect may not damage the long-term sustainability of some ously work at managing the social dimensions as well as the
forests, driving forces like climate change will lead to quicker ecological and economic dimensions of sustainable forests.
and harsher changes in the health of forests that are not actively
managed. Consequently, those forests, and the services they A Collective Conservation Ethic
provide, will be at greater risk.
During the 20th century, leaders in forest conservation identi-
fied a growing number of ways that forests benefit our society.
Altered Disturbance Patterns At the beginning of the 20th century, the links between healthy
Some degree of disturbance is normal and natural in forests. forested watersheds and their beneficial effect on stream flows
Examples of common natural disturbances include storms, and water quality—key ecosystem services from working
hurricanes, late frosts that damage flowering and seed produc- forests—were one of the main reasons why the national forests
tion, mid-winter warm-ups that damage frost hardiness, were created. In the middle of the 20th century, the values of
lightning igniting wildfires, and pest outbreaks. Humans also forests for outdoor recreation and solitude were enshrined in
cause disturbances in forests, some intentionally (e.g., convert- public laws.
ing forests to residential uses or prescribing fires as part of
More recently, as urban areas have grown and energy for
management plans) and some unintentionally (e.g., a campfire
transportation, home heating, and cooking has shifted from
that escapes because it was not fully extinguished).
burning wood to consuming electricity, oil, and natural gas,
Part of the forest manager’s job is managing the risks and people have become increasingly disconnected from forests.
uncertainties to forest health and ecosystem services that arise Today, many people’s primary interaction with forests and
from disturbances. When a pattern of disturbances changes rural landscapes is driving past them on interstate highways.
significantly across a landscape, more severely threatening Further, with the advent of various new forms of entertainment,
forest health and productivity, forests need active management we and our children are spending less and less time outside
to help them adapt to the changing conditions and to sustain engaged in physical activity in the woods.
the flow of services and products expected from those working
Today, many conservationists are concerned that the general
forests. Sometimes, forests need small, controlled disturbances
public is now so disconnected from forests and the numerous
to reduce the risks and uncertainties associated with larger,
services and products they provide that public support for
uncontrollable disturbances. For example, removing hazardous
forest conservation and management is ebbing to dangerously
fuels and using light, prescribed fires can reduce the risk of
low levels. To maintain our capacity and capability to manage
losing ecosystem services and reduce the threat to homes from
forests, and more broadly, all the lands in rural landscapes, a
large wildfires. In many areas, simply allowing nature to take
new and collective conservation ethic is required. Not only
its course is not a viable option in the face of growing risks and
would this ethic enhance the sustainability of forests, but it
uncertainties.
would also support pathways toward sustainability for range-
Several of the driving forces already introduced appear to be lands, farms, and ranches; in short, it would build support for
changing the pattern of disturbances considered normal during sustainable development principles that would benefit our
the past several decades. The following chapters will explain growing national population. A shared conservation ethic
in more detail the combined effects of these driving forces on could act as a cornerstone on which to anchor many different
disturbance patterns. development decisions.
Contemporary Challenges Facing Landscape-Scale Conservation

Sustainable Forests In 2009, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack called for creating
a “shared vision” for America’s forests, one that recognized the
Besides the driving forces affecting the Nation’s forests,
importance of all lands: “The threats facing our forests don’t
attitudes and beliefs of Americans also affect how the country’s
recognize property boundaries. So, in developing a shared
public and private forests are conserved, used, managed,
vision around forests, we must also be willing to look across
and protected. Some of these attitudes and beliefs reinforce
property boundaries. In other words, we must operate at a
the Nation’s ability to achieve sustainable forests, although

landscape-scale by taking an ‘all-lands approach.’”6 More and mantra—better data leads to better dialog, which leads to better
more, we are coming to realize that we need to consider entire decisions—is founded on the quality and quantity of data
landscapes, and not simply individual parcels of forest land, to available to describe current conditions and evaluate recent
achieve our social and economic goals at community, regional, trends. If inventory and monitoring activities are well designed
and national levels. and funded, a solid basis for dialog can be created.
As chapter 3 describes, success in achieving landscape-scale A major benefit from the first decade of development of the
conservation is tied closely to our success in achieving con- MP C&I is the fact that many countries created new inventory
structive social interactions at that landscape scale. Examples and monitoring programs or significantly improved existing
highlighted in chapter 3 include activities that have been suc- programs in order to better meet the demands of the C&I. In the
cessful in various places and through various means to facilitate United States, strategic-level forest inventories have improved
the transition from working forests into real landscape-scale significantly over the past decade as a result, most notably in
conservation. These examples are our roadmap to affecting the the case of the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program,
way we view our natural assets and, more importantly, how we which is administered within the Forest Service’s Research &
care for them. Development area with collaboration from partner organiza-
tions. Data from this source contributed substantially to the
Consumption Choices indicator reports found in Part II. Investments have also been
made in inventories at finer spatial scales, but some of these
Human consumption of goods and services from natural
have not paid similar dividends because much of this work is
resources is the most profound way in which the social and
still too decentralized in its administration, with designs and
economic arenas affect the environmental arena in the strong
measurements too inconsistent to permit effective landscape-
sustainability model (fig. 1). For this reason, a large number of
scale, all-lands dialog and policymaking.
indicators across all the criteria highlight the effects of various
consumption choices.
Summary of Driving Forces and Contemporary
Our choices about consuming natural resource goods and Challenges
services are constrained by the current health and productivity
Although they have been introduced here as discrete items,
of forests and landscapes, and they also have a major influence
the combined effects of these driving forces and contemporary
on the future health and productivity—the sustainability—of
challenges on forests and on all lands across landscapes are
those same forests and landscapes. Consuming too much today
inevitably the result of complex interrelationships. Their influ-
may leave too little for the future.
ence spans ecological, social, and economic dimensions and
Population growth is a major determinant in total consumption. can be discerned throughout the indicators presented in Part II.
Choices about desired standard of living and lifestyle—both Likewise, their ramifications can be seen in many of the most
of which are dependent on disposable income—determine pressing issues facing forests and forest managers today.
per-capita consumption. When both of these factors are com-
In response to the many comments we received in the review
bined—increased consumption per-capita and increased overall
process associated with the initial draft of this report, we have
population growth—stresses on sustainability can be magnified.
chosen three such overarching issues upon which to focus our
Policymakers concerned with sustainability should track
analysis and policy suggestion in subsequent chapters of Part I
trends in per-capita consumption and use available population
of this report. They are—
projections to evaluate future prospects for sustainability. The
MP C&I have indicators of per-capita consumption, but leave 1. The loss of forest lands and working forests.
population projections to others.
2. The relationship between forests, climate change, and
bioenergy development.
Decentralized Data Acquisition, Storage, and
Reporting 3. Changing forest health and disturbance patterns.
A central premise of the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests Obviously, we could have chosen other issues, but these three
is that forest policy decisions are more likely to receive are widely recognized as core issues impacting forest sustain-
support and achieve their desired outcomes when they are ability today and promise to remain so well into the future, and
based on sound data and when broad-based public dialog has they are broad enough to encompass the drivers and challenges
occurred during the policymaking process. The roundtable’s identified above.
6
See Vilsack (2009) for transcript of speech (http://www.usda.gov/2009/08/0382.xml).

The 2010 Reporting Cycle National Report on Sustainable
The 2010 reporting cycle includes a number of products
Forests—2010
organized around the challenge of addressing forest sustainabil- The National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 is divided
ity in general and the requirements of the Montreal Process in into two parts. The first part provides an introduction and sets
particular. The National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 the context for the report (chapter 1); summarizes key findings,
is the most visible of these products, but it is best viewed as significant conditions, and major trends that are evident in
a window on a much broader body of work. The genesis of the data (chapter 2); reviews ongoing efforts to broaden and
this report began immediately after the release of the National deepen the commitment to sustainable forests (chapter 3); and
Report on Sustainable Forests—2003. The team that prepared describes possible future actions (chapter 4). The second part
that report con- provides a concise and consistent presentation of the current
Overview of the National Report ducted a critique data and analysis specific to each of the 64 indicators. The
on Sustainable Forests—2010 that identified indicator reports are brief—1 or 2 pages each—and serve as an
Part I lessons learned and overview and set of highlights drawn from the broader portfolio
Chapter 1: Setting the Stage: potential areas ripe of work found in the supporting data reports, which will be
The Context for Reporting on for improvement published online.
Sustainable Forests in the next report.
Chapter 2: What the Data Tell Us Participants in the Associated Products
Chapter 3: Broadening and Roundtable on
Deepening Our Commitment to Sustainable Forests Data Reports for Individual Indicators
Sustainability
contributed a Although the individual indicator reports have been limited to
Chapter 4: Looking Ahead to the number of sug-
Future one or two pages in the national report, more indepth reports
gestions as plans will be published and made available via the Forest Service
Part II were being laid and sustainability Web site. These more detailed data reports will
Data Presentation refined. delve deeper into the data collected and analyses performed and
Although this provide pertinent metadata, sources, and reference materials.
report has a national focus, external reviews and the critique
of the 2003 reporting process pointed out that the national Partner Reports
presentation masked regional differences and did not inform Several partners have collaborated in this 2010 reporting cycle
regional discussions. This report presents more information by producing stand-alone, peer-reviewed reports. These partner
about conditions in subnational regions and how they differ— reports cover related topics, including the state of sustainability
both between regions and over time. If data used for indicators of tropical forests in the United States, the sustainability of
show regional differences, then they are highlighted and often urban and agricultural forest resources, and more detailed con-
depicted visually in the 2010 report. siderations of certain indicators or syntheses between several
This report represents the work of some 40 individuals. The indicators. These reports will be published in association with
updated indicator reports found in Part II, in particular, reflect the 2010 national report as they become available. Together
the work of more than 30 Forest Service scientists and collabo- with the data reports, the partner reports support ongoing
rators from universities, other agencies, and organizations. This discussions of the various dimensions of forest sustainability;
report is supported by the science in a number of associated these dimensions cannot be easily addressed within the context
reports and background documentation, all of which will be of a single indicator brief.
available electronically and some in hard copy. They include
the following: Online Presence
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010. Along with the 2010 national report, the Forest Service is
preparing an online Web tool to deliver and display indicator
Associated products: data and associated analyses. The Forest Service anticipates
• Data reports for individual indicators. feedback and weblog functions in the future, but these will not
be included in the initial rollout.
• Partner reports on specific topics.
• A Web site with access to data and reports. In addition to the availability of information on the Forest Ser-
vice Web site, more information regarding organizations using

the MP C&I to inform work at national and subnational levels provides an updated perspective on the major driving forces
is summarized and available via the Web site of the Roundtable that the authors believe are affecting sustainability and deter-
on Sustainable Forests (http://www.sustainableforests.net). mining the contemporary challenges faced by natural resource
managers and policymakers. You may see things differently,
and therefore you may draw different conclusions from the
Summary material presented in the remainder of Part I and Part II of this
report. We hope that your perspectives and observations help
This chapter sets the context for the rest of the report. It
to inform the public dialog that needs to occur concerning the
identifies the key changes in the philosophical approach to
future of U.S. forests. Better data should lead to better dialog,
sustainability that have occurred—both globally and domesti-
and better dialog should lead to better decisions.
cally—since the first national report was issued in 2003. It also

Chapter 2
What the Data Tell Us
this effort and in the specific comments we received on the

Are Our Forests Sustainable? initial draft of this edition, we were asked to provide this sort
This is a complex question with no easy yes-or-no answers. of analysis and state what all this information means in terms
On the whole, there is no evidence that we are “using up” of forest sustainability. At the same time, we were repeatedly
our forests. In fact, the total area of forests has been stable, cautioned by other reviewers to remain as close to the facts as
and the volume of wood found on them increasing. But
possible. Providing interpretation and analysis while remaining
there are a number of issues, ranging from regional forest
fragmentation and loss to widespread increases in forest true to the facts is a fine line to walk, but it is in no way unique.
insect infestation and other disturbances, that are cause for In fact, scientists and analysts in all lines of inquiry walk this
significant concern. Potential changes in climate compound line daily.
the risks and uncertainties associated with these issues.
We can approach this task in several ways. One approach is to
provide explicit judgment calls for specific indicators, either
through scores, up and down arrows, or similar techniques that
Introduction present explicit determinations of sustainability on an indicator-
by-indicator basis. Indeed, many people initially envisioned
A fundamental goal of this report is to provide comprehensive, sustainability C&I as providing just such an explicit calculus.7
reliable, and consistent information that forestry professionals, The experience of those who have tried this approach, however,
policymakers, and the public at large can use to better assess has shown that scoring individual indicators is no easy task,
forest sustainability. This goal represents the “better data” por- involving numerous and often contentious judgments about the
tion of the “better data-better dialog-better decisions” triad that desired trends or acceptable thresholds that describe sustainability
underlies sustainability reporting. This chapter will undertake for specific indicators. This challenge is compounded by the fact
an initial foray into the dialog portion of the triad, providing that the implications of specific indicators for sustainability often
a summary of those findings that emerge from the indicators cannot be assessed in isolation from those of other indicators.
that we think are most important to understanding the current
conditions of our forests and their sustainability in the future. Therefore, we use a narrative approach to summarize the data
found in the indicator briefs. This approach enables us to sift
The roughly 130 pages of indicator-specific information through and present the information in a more organic fashion,
included in the second half of this report represent a wealth of choosing those measures that we think are most important
data that can be used for a variety of purposes. Although each and drawing linkages to other indicators where needed. The
indicator brief provides some inkling of its broader implica- next question is how this summary should be organized. The
tions for sustainability, much of the information the briefs structure of the MP C&I gives us a logical starting place, and
present lacks the context needed to fully assess their collective we provide a summary of significant findings by criteria as a
meaning. As a result, the numerous charts and tables found frontpiece to the indicator briefs found in Part II. In this chapter,
in the data section of this report may strike many readers as we begin with an overall summary of what we consider the key
a confusing “bag of numbers” requiring further analysis and conclusions emerging from the indicator information, including
interpretation before its implications for sustainability can be several “red flags” demarking areas of particular concern.
ascertained. Both in the broader public discussion surrounding
7
Work continues on the development of increasingly sophisticated quantified sustainability indexes, many of which make allowances for the challenges
involved in this approach (see, e.g., Sing et al. 2009; Esty et al. 2005).

Next, we provide a “synthesis” of indicator information around
three issues of particular importance to current policy debates:
Summary of Key Findings
(1) loss of forest lands and working forests, (2) climate change
and bioenergy, and (3) changing forest health and disturbance
Key Findings in Brief
patterns. By addressing these issues, we hope to show how
• Overall forest area is stable
the database represented in the indicator briefs can be used to
address pressing concerns and issues in a synthetic fashion. • The integrity and biological diversity of our forests are
increasingly threatened
We follow with a discussion of regional differences, largely in
response to the strong call for more regional and local informa- • Elevated levels of forest disturbance are of particular
concern
tion that accompanied the release of the 2003 edition of this
report. We conclude with a discussion of data adequacy and • Society’s relationship with forests is changing
potential strategies for future reporting on forest sustainability. • Wood products production is declining relative to
consumption
• Management intensity for timber production appears to
A Note on the Recent Recession be declining
The recent sharp downturn in the global economy and the even • Institutional capacity to manage forests is difficult to
sharper recession in the U.S. housing sector, in particular, have quantify but appears to be stable
important implications for forest sustainability, at least in the
short term. The most direct way the recession will affect forests
is through reduced homebuilding activity, which results in Overall Forest Area Is Stable
reduced wood products production and related forest manage- (Indicators 1.01 and 1.02)
ment activities, on the one hand, and reduced residential
development, on the other. In the first case, decreasing timber From the broadleaved forests of the East to the conifers of
harvests mean less immediate loss of forest cover but also the West, the United States continues to benefit from a large
potential reductions in our long-term ability to manage forests and diverse inventory of forests distributed across the Nation.
and the possibility that more land will be taken out of forestry Total U.S. forest area, as defined for the purposes of this report,
in lieu of other uses. In the second case, declines in residential currently amounts to 751 million acres, or about one-third of
construction activity mean reductions in forest fragmentation in the Nation’s total land area. Since the beginning of the past
areas prone to development. century, the size of this inventory has been relatively stable,
and the forests it represents remain largely intact. This stability
The indicators presented in this report, however, are generally is in spite of a nearly three-fold increase in population over
designed to assess sustainability in the context of long-term the same period and is in marked contrast with many countries
trends, and they are either not sensitive or not timely enough to where widescale deforestation remains a pressing concern. It
register changes resulting from short-term market fluctuations. also is in contrast with our more distant past, where nearly 300
Within the context of this report, the crucial question is whether million acres of U.S. forest were lost between the advent of
the recession will result in a sustained secular shift in the demand European settlement and the beginning of the 1900s.
for housing, thus affecting both rates of new residential construc-
tion and wood products prices and production over the long The forest area’s stability during the past century is the partial
term. Should this occur, the recession’s effects on forests and result of stable ownership patterns and land-use designations.
forest management would certainly be important, but it is too For example, 14 percent of U.S. forests are currently protected
early to tell whether such a change is actually in the offing. under wilderness or similar status, and this number has changed
little since the last report in 2003 (although the increased use
of protection easements and similar instruments on private
lands would indicate that the total amount of forest under some
form of protection is increasing—see Indicator 6.27). A more
important factor in maintaining overall forest area in America,
however, is the fact that throughout the past century, losses of
forest land in some areas (particularly those adjacent to grow-
ing urban areas) have been offset by gains in others (abandoned
agricultural lands returning to forest, for example).

The Integrity and Biological Diversity Society’s Relationship With Forests Is
of Our Forests Are Increasingly Changing (Criterion 6)
Threatened (Indicators 1.03, 1.04 As our society evolves, our relationship with the forest also
and 1.05) evolves, as evidenced by many of the indicators in Criterion 6.
We are recognizing new ways in which forests contribute to
The relatively stability of U.S. forests is a positive development
our society, while more traditional uses and outputs remain as
in terms of forest sustainability. This stability, however, does
important as ever. Much of this bodes well for forest sustain-
not necessarily indicate the quality of our forests and whether
ability. The growing awareness of ecosystem services, and
their condition has been improving or declining over time. In
the establishment of revenue streams associated with them,
this regard, the indicator results are less promising. The gross
provides new emphasis on conservation and management along
statistics on forest areas cited previously mask considerable
with new mechanisms and added resources to achieve them.
shifts in forest cover on a more local basis, meaning that many
The information on nonwood forest products proves that tradi-
areas have experienced considerable losses in forest cover.
tional gathering activities are not disappearing; in fact, they are
Steady demand for residential and other development continues
more important than previously assumed and are attracting new
to fragment forest ecosystems both in urban areas and in more
participants. The diverse set of recreation activities portrayed
natural environments that are targets for vacation and retire-
in the indicators illustrates that forests provide direct benefits
ment home development.
to many Americans on a regular basis. Although sustainability
Despite notable reversals in the population declines of some of U.S. forests in the past was largely characterized, although
forest animals (wolves in the intermountain West, for example), perhaps incorrectly, as a simple balancing act between nature
important components of the overall diversity of forest flora and and timber harvests, today it entails a much broader range of
fauna remain threatened. Seventy-seven forest-associated plants elements and objectives interacting in both competitive and
and animals that were present in our forests when our Nation complimentary ways.8
was founded are now presumed to be extint. An additional 4,005
species, or 27 percent of the total number of forest-associated Wood Products Production Is
species, are at risk of extinction. Since 2003, changes in
reporting practices and a substantial increase in data on many
Declining Relative to Consumption
species make it very difficult to draw comparisons with data (Indicators 6.25, 6.28, and 6.32)
from the 2003 report, but indications are that the situation for At the same time, commodity production of wood products
certain groups (such as amphibians) has deteriorated slightly in remains an essential function served by the Nation’s forests.
recent years. The indicators on wood products production and trade indicate
a slight decline in overall industry production in the past decade
Elevated Levels of Forest Disturbance matched by an accompanying increase in imports. These changes
are more pronounced at the regional scale. The indicators in
Are of Particular Concern (Criterion 3) Criteria 1 and 2 point to stable or increasing timber stocking
The data presented for the two indicators comprising Criterion 3 throughout much of the Nation, and this supports the conclu-
clearly show that the Nation’s forests are subject to increasing sion that declining production is not because of physical
levels of disturbance, such as insect infestation and fire. These resource constraints. These developments are important not
disturbances result from processes we often cannot control and only for their potential effect on forest-dependent industries and
may not always fully understand. In particular, the incidence communities but also for their potential effects on ecosystems
of insect-induced tree mortality has increased three-fold in in other countries. Moreover, the decline or disappearance
the past decade. This fact is backed by substantial anecdotal of forestry operations in certain regions may influence forest
experience and is undoubtedly the clearest red flag emerging management and land-use patterns in ways that are not always
from this report. beneficial to forest ecosystems, particularly in areas subject to
housing development pressure or where forest fuel loading and
timber overstocking is an issue.
8
The data presented in the Criterion 6 indicators do not currently reflect the potential alienation of urban populations from forests that was noted as a
contemporary challenge in chapter 1. Criterion 6, and its indicators on recreational use in particular, will be an important measure for tracking this trend in
the future.

Management Intensity for Timber Overarching Issues and
Production Appears To Be Declining Synthesis
(Indicators 2.11 and 2.12)
Although growing timber stocks indicate that we will not
be running out of wood anytime soon, mounting evidence Three Overarching Issues for Synthesis
indicates that the intensity of forest management for timber 1. Loss of forest lands and working forests
production is declining: firms are devoting less effort and
2. Forests, climate change, and bioenergy development
investment to the creation and maintenance of production
3. Changing forest health and disturbance patterns
forests. This decline is clearly evident in the falling rates of
plantation plantings. Forest management companies selling
timber lands to real estate investment trusts and similar entities
The previous section used the information in the indicator
is cited as a major factor in this development, and these trends
reports to identify a number of key findings regarding cur-
are exacerbated by low stumpage prices arising from a surfeit
rent conditions and trends in our country’s forests as they
of available wood fiber and growing wood products imports.
relate to sustainability. This approach is perhaps the most
This situation has certainly not been improved by the recent
recession. Although not immediately apparent in the gross straightforward way to use the C&I, but this is certainly not
statistics on growth and harvest, the potential effect of declin- the only way in which it can be used. Because it can organize a
ing management intensity on our ability to supply our needs for comprehensive set of information within an explicit hierarchi-
timber in the coming decades bears watching. cal structure, the MP C&I functions well as a general reference
for key statistics. These statistics can then be used individually
or in combination to help understand specific topics, topics
Institutional Capacity To Manage that may or may not be directly related to sustainability. The
Forests Is Difficult To Quantify But value of the MP C&I in this case lies not in its ability to paint
Appears To Be Relatively Stable a comprehensive picture so much as in its ability to quickly
(Criterion 7) deliver the specific pieces of information that people need to
address topics of their choosing.
Our institutional capacity to effectively care for our forest
ecosystems is an essential aspect of forest sustainability. Many In chapter 1, we identified three overarching issues of crucial
of the indicators in Criterion 7 are difficult to quantify in a importance to sustainable forest management now and in
consistent and replicable fashion, but the information we do the future. In this section we use the information found in
have shows that our government and academic institutions the various indicator briefs in Part II to address these issues
have stable capacity. In addition, the sustainability activi- synthetically. We begin with the issue of the loss of forests
ties highlighted in chapter 3 of this report point to growing through fragmentation and land use conversion.
collaboration between multiple organizations and stakeholders
with the aim of strengthening our understanding and informing
our actions in relation to forest sustainability. Although impos-
Loss of Forest Lands and Working
sible to measure in a quantitative sense, the sum total of these Forests
activities represents a substantial investment in our capacity to The loss of forest land through fragmentation and outright
sustainably manage our forests. conversion to other land uses is a major concern for the public,
as evidenced by the many comments we received on the topic
Although capacity in government and academia appear to be
during the review of the initial draft of this report. The indica-
stable, the economic infrastructure needed to engage in active
tors in Criterion 1, particularly Indicator 1.01, which addresses
forest management is deteriorating in some regions, notably
the intermountain West. Likewise, the process of urbaniza- the distribution of forest ecosystems by type and ownership
tion—indentified as a driving force in chapter 1—is resulting class, and Indicator 1.03, which addresses forest fragmentation,
in a growing disconnect between people and their forests; kids are directly related to this issue. Indicator 1.01, however, shows
are reportedly spending less time in the woods, and the number that, at the national level, forest area has remained quite stable
of traditional forestry degrees granted by post-secondary for the past century. This fact presents us with a paradox: loss
institutions is declining (although this is partially balanced by of forest land is a major concern in professional discussions
a rise in other environmental degrees that could support forest and policy debates, and yet the overall statistics for U.S. forest
management). The extent to which these developments affect cover register no significant change.
our institutional capacity to manage forests sustainably in the
future remains to be seen, but it is certainly a concern.

This paradox is partially resolved when we realize that forest a hedge against the conversion of forest land to other uses such
loss is experienced by most of us at the local level and not as real estate development, although the extent to which it can
at the level measured by national statistics. In the words of actually do so in the face of rapid increases in land values close
foresters and geographers, the phenomenon is scale dependent to urban areas will vary. Finally, the divestiture of forest lands
(Willbanks 1999). We see forest loss when a patch of woods by forest industry firms is often accompanied by a reduction in
in our neighborhood is cut down to make way for a shopping management activity because the new owners are more prone
center or when a forested hillside in the distance is progres- to view their land as real estate investments than as a source of
sively fragmented by new houses. The losses associated with wood for their mills (Clutter et al. 2005).
these events, in the form of reduced ecosystem services, shrink-
Many of these same issues face nonindustrial private forest
ing wildlife habitat, and diminished aesthetic values, are real
landowners who must balance concerns such as their need
and often permanent. The fact that they may be compensated
for current income and desire to maximize their long-term
in a statistical sense by gains in forest area, say, from forest
investments for themselves and their children with their desire
colonization of abandoned agricultural land in some distant
to be good stewards of the forests under their care (Stein et al.
State, does not lessen their impact, particularly when the losses
2009). Because more than 60 percent of current nonindustrial
are concentrated in areas where intact forests and green space
private forest landowners are age 55 or older, life stages and
are in short supply. The implication here is that forest loss from
succession planning play an important part here and point to
land conversion is most important at the local, landscape, or
increasing divestiture in the future (Butler 2008).
regional scale, especially near major population centers.
Discerning changes in forest ownership and their underlying
Data on forest land affected by development, presented in
causes is a complex task, and none of the indicators provide
Indicator 3.16, shows that affected lands have increased
direct measures. Indicator 1.01 does contain information on
steadily over the past few decades, accounting for 13.3 percent
forest ownership, but it is not the sole focus of the indicator;
of total forest land in 2000 and projected to reach 14.3 percent
and the level of detail provided in this report is not sufficient to
by 2020 (Theobald 2005). Most of this development has taken
track forest land divestiture or parcelization. Experts who have
place in the “exurban” housing density category (1.7 to 40 acres
contributed to this report are conducting further research so
per unit), and the effects here are likely more in the form of
future reports should have better data. The indicators covering
forest fragmentation than wholesale forest overstory loss. As a
timber harvest, wood products production, and forest sector
result, they are not identified as a loss of forest land under the
investment provide an indication of the broadscale shifts in forest
definitions used in Indicator 1.01.
sector activity, and these in turn provide some indication of where
For a measure of forest fragmentation, we need to turn to and to what extent forest land is being taken out of production
Indicator 1.03. Here too, however, the measure is highly scale forestry. The number of newly planted forest plantations, for
dependent. From the indicator, it is possible to identify large ar- example (Indicator 2.12), will be an important measure of our
eas where contiguous forests dominate, and these are generally society’s will to invest in timber production in the future.
in areas without large concentrations of people or agricultural
In regard to forest loss, fragmentation, and changing owner-
activity. Unfortunately, we have just begun to standardize
ship, the indicators in this report provide only the most general
our methods for measuring fragmentation, and it is currently
information. In fact, if we were not looking for evidence of loss
impossible to get a clear picture of how it has progressed over
specifically, it is unlikely that we would identify the problem
recent years. We know, however, that it is occurring at a rapid
from an analysis of the information included solely in this
pace in many localities, and this will be an important variable
report, especially because Indicator 1.01, the core measure of
to watch in the future.
forest area, shows no significant change in recent years. So how
Changing forest ownership patterns, and the divestiture of large is the MP C&I useful in this context? First, it provides a start-
tracts of forest land by traditional forest management coming point to discern what sorts of available data, if presented
panies in particular, are another important aspect to consider at finer spatial scales, could help in analysis. Second, it helps
when analyzing the loss of forest lands. It is in this context that identify gaps or weaknesses in the major data sets that need to
the term “working forests,” meaning forests producing an array be filled. And third, it provides an overall context within which
of ecosystem goods and services (including timber), becomes to understand the problem. Thus, we learn that loss of forests is
applicable. A number of studies have shown that forest largely a local or regional problem that is not immediately ap-
management for timber production can enhance biodiversity parent at the national level; that fragmentation is perhaps more
and other ecosystem services in certain settings (Gustafson of a problem than the wholesale loss of forest cover; and that
et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2009). Moreover, where profitable, simple ownership categories, such as “public” and “private,”
timber management and the revenues it generates can serve as mask important changes, especially in the private sector.

Forests, Climate Change, and productivity. The indicators in Criterion 3 characterize forest
disturbance and will act as perhaps the primary leading indicators
Bioenergy for detecting effects from climate change. In order to serve this
Climate affects forest in various and profound ways. Conversely, function, however, we must view them in the context of the
through processes such as carbon sequestration, transpiration, other indicators and information outside of the MP C&I. In this
and the influence of vegetative cover on the reflective proper- regard, the increases in insect infestations, drought, and fire
ties of the earth’s surface (termed “albedo”), forests can affect registered in Indicators 3.15 and 3.16 may be the partial result
climate both locally and globally. Accordingly, our consid- of climate change, but we cannot say so with any degree of
eration of the relationship between the MP C&I and climate certainty.
change can be divided into two categories: the potential effects
of the climate on forests, and the potential effect of forests on Because of this uncertainty, we will need to adapt our actions
the climate. and strategies as new information becomes available. In some
areas, for example, we may need to favor different species
The initial effect of climate change on forests will be primarily in our management activities or shift our objectives to match
through changes in forest composition and productivity and changing realities on the ground. In either case, whether
through changes in forest disturbance regimes. In the case through intentional management or through processes over
of the former, increases in atmospheric carbon, changes in which we have little control, changes in climate could entail
temperature, availability of water, and the length of growing significant changes in the composition of forests and how they
seasons will affect the relative health and productivity of are used by the middle of this century. These changes, in turn,
different species in complex ways. For forests in some areas, will manifest themselves in changes, some sooner and some
the result may be a boost in growth, primarily as a result of later, throughout the indicators included in the MP C&I.
increased availability of carbon dioxide—a process known
as the CO2 fertilization effect—although the actual degree to The indicators in Criterion 5 provide a direct measure of the in-
which this will occur is not yet certain (Gedalof and Berg 2010; fluence of forests on national carbon accounts. These indicators
Ram et al. 2001). In others areas, especially those receiving less clearly illustrate the role played by forests in mitigating carbon
precipitation, forests may suffer. emissions through sequestration. The yearly accumulation of
carbon on forests lands is estimated to offset 11 percent of total
In the case of forest disturbance regimes, these factors will af- national carbon emissions, with accumulations in long-lived
fect the range and intensity of biological disturbance agents (for forest products providing another 1 to 2 percent. In addition,
example, insects and invasive species) and the prevalence of the fact that the total amount of carbon stored in forests is
abiotic disturbance agents (primarily drought and fire, although equivalent to 27 times our annual carbon emissions demon-
storm damage may be quite important locally). These impacts strates the importance of forests in global carbon balances and
may already be occurring. Recent studies have measured an the potential effect should substantial areas of forest be lost
increase in tree mortality owing to physiological stress related through natural (e.g., fire) or human causes (e.g., development).
to drought and heat extremes, and climate change is noted as a
potential cause (see Allen et al. 2010 for a global review of this Because forests provide a potential means for positively
work). The ability of the pine bark beetle to extend its range affecting climate change through forest management decisions,
to more northern latitudes and higher elevations is a troubling several of the indicators in Criteria 6 and 7 are also important
example of this (Bentz et al. 2010). here. For example, Indicator 6.27, which tracks payments for
ecosystem services, shows a 20-fold increase in activity in
Researchers are just beginning to understand the complex the voluntary market for carbon offset credits from forestry
interactions between changing climate, forest composition, and operations. Similarly, Indicator 6.34 measures investment in
productivity fluctuations at the landscape level. These results, forest management and wood products industries. The indicator
combined with changing disturbance patterns and intensities, notes that $230 million of Federal grants, in conjunction with
will change the type and pattern of forest cover across the private investments, have been allotted to promote wood-based
landscape, and thus change the benefits we receive from forest biofuels—an energy source that has been designated by
ecosystems. Over the long term, these changes may be quite Congress as “carbon neutral.”
profound, requiring significant adjustments in forest manage-
ment practices and policies. The potential of forests to mitigate emissions and greenhouse
gas concentrations also suggests that active, long-term affor-
Many of the indicators track the sorts of developments discussed estation programs on abandoned lands may be warranted, with
in the previous paragraph. The indicators in Criteria 1 and 2, funding at least partially provided by payments for the eco-
for example, measure different aspects of forest cover and system service—namely carbon sequestration—they provide.

Moreover, forests in close proximity to heavy emission areas, Several other indicators are also related to this issue of energy
such as in and around cities, can help alleviate air pollution production from wood. As noted in the previous section on
and reduce temperature variation by providing shade in the climate change, Indicator 6.34 tracks investment in the forest
summer and shelter from wind in the winter. Trees and forests sector, including bioenergy (although consistent long-term
in developed areas can also serve as a carbon sink. tracking will depend on U.S. Departments of Commerce and
Energy statistical reporting practices). Investment will once
Finally, many of the indicators in Criterion 7 measure our
again serve as a leading indicator. The indicators tracking
society’s capacity to manage forests effectively in terms of both
wood products production and trade in Criterion 6 will provide
achieving carbon sequestration and responding to changing
additional information about activity in this area, but, this
forest conditions resulting from climate change and other
will again depend on consistent statistical reporting practices
causes. Although it is difficult to discern a clear signal from the
for various types of power (e.g., electricity generation versus
Criterion 7 indicators in this regard, continuing development of
liquid transportation fuels) and raw fuels and feedstocks (e.g.,
the indicators should improve this situation in the future. What
cellulosic ethanol versus starch ethanol, or woody biomass
is clear, however, is that a legal and institutional framework
from forests versus agricultural residues). The information on
that underpins a supportive environment for investments in
forest area, stocking, and productivity found in Criterion 2 will
sustainable forest management, from both public and private
provide important information on the long-term sustainability
sources and at the local, State, and national levels, is vital.
of bioenergy and biofuels production, particularly if they
Bioenergy and biofuel production from forest biomass is develop into major industries.
another potential link between forests and climate. Bioenergy
One of the key findings emerging from the indicators in
production represents a nascent forest products industry that
Criterion 2 is that the sheer volume of wood being added to
has the potential to radically transform certain aspects of forest
our forests each year through growth well exceeds the amount
management, the wood products sector, and markets for both
we are removing, and that total stocks of standing timber have
wood products and energy, with effects across the whole range
been increasing rapidly in almost every region of the country
of ecological, social, and economic dimensions covered in the
as a result. Statistics comparing volume stocking and increment
MP C&I. Currently, most of the energy produced from wood
versus harvest removals are a classic measure of sustainability
comes from combustion, and the production of wood-based
from strictly a timber standpoint. They indicate, in these
liquid biofuels and similar products is still in its infancy. Expansion
gross terms at least, that substantial and growing resources
in the production of these new products will depend on new
are available for bioenergy production should it prove viable.
technological innovations and developments in energy markets.
Although, of course, a net surplus of available timber volume
Indicator 5.24 shows that wood-based energy production cur- at the national level does not ensure large-scale bioenergy
rently represents 2 percent of total national energy production. production will be sustainable for a given region or landscape.
Despite a near doubling of electricity generation in the past This sustainability will depend on local forest stocking and a
20 years from the burning of wood, total wood-based energy host of other ecological and economic factors.
production has been decreasing since the mid-1990s, due in
most part to declines in the use of wood for heating—both in Changing Forest Health and
homes and as part of industrial processes. In the future, Indica-
tor 5.24 will directly register changes in bioenergy and biofuels
Disturbance Patterns
production, should they occur. We have identified elevated levels of forest disturbance as one
of the key overall findings of the report, and they are treated
Converting wood to energy, and particularly burning wood to in detail in the summary for Criterion 3 found in Part II of this
produce heat or electricity, does involve short-term emissions report. The purpose of this section of the report is to emphasize
of carbon, a fact that is getting increasing attention (e.g., the ways in which forest health and disturbance affect the other
Manomet 2010). Carbon neutrality is attained over time as indicators and our pursuit of forest sustainability as a whole.
forests grow. Alternatively, carbon neutrality can result from
producing energy from wood that would otherwise burn We should realize that disturbance patterns represent fundamen-
without producing usable energy, either through the process of tal processes through which forests are formed and continue to
disposal or through wildfires. This second form of neutrality evolve; they are not simply accidents that happen to forests as
is especially important when attempting to integrate bioenergy they go about their business of growing (Botkin 1979, Oliver
production with management activities designed to reduce and Larson 1996). All of our forests have, to some degree, been
forest stocking and fuel loading in the pursuit of ecosystem formed by disturbance processes, be they natural or human
restoration. induced (e.g., periodic burning of the forest understory by

American Indians). So our forest management activities, land use types, managing for disturbance will increasingly
which can be viewed as forms of disturbance in themselves, require collaborative mechanisms involving multiple stakehold-
are continually interacting with a broader set of disturbance ers organized around agreed upon landscape objectives. The
processes acting on the landscape, and the resulting forest is a National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise Communities
product of this interaction. Consequently, forest disturbances program is a case in point.9
have a profound effect on all aspects of forest ecosystems,
ranging from species composition to the forest benefits and
uses available to society. Regional Differences
Disturbance processes will also determine many of our forest One of this report’s goals is to provide improved coverage of
management activities, particularly those directed to natural regional and local variation in conditions and trends across
or seminatural forest stands. These processes are prime factors all the indicators. Therefore, we have included a new heading
motivating the Forest Service’s increasing focus on ecosystem addressing regional differences in each of the indicator briefs
restoration. This linkage between management activities and included in Part II. Given the breadth of indicators included
disturbance processes is especially relevant in landscapes prone in the MP C&I and the data available to treat them, however,
to fire, but it also applies in other settings where forest health providing regional detail is still a very challenging task. In
issues are identified and increased resilience is needed. Many particular, providing detailed regional analysis in each of the
of the most pressing issues currently facing our forests and indicator briefs in Part II and the summary analyses in this sec-
their management stem from disturbance processes, such as tion would significantly increase the length of what is already a
insects and disease, catastrophic wildfire, invasive species, or long document.
human-induced impacts from development or, more indirectly,
Nevertheless, many of the indicators do have substantial regional
from climate change.
detail underlying their analysis, even if it could not be included
As a result, forest disturbance influences all of the indicators in in the report. Certain data sets, notably the forest inventory data
the Montréal Process indicator set. In many cases, this influ- from the Forest Inventory and Analysis program (FIA) and the
ence will be indirect and difficult to immediately discern, but it various socioeconomic data sets used to address Criterion 6,
will be present nonetheless. In other cases, such as the ecosys- have a high degree of spatial resolution, often down to the State
tem indicators in Criteria 1 and 2 or the carbon accounts found and even county levels. Some of this information is available in
in Criterion 5, the effect of disturbance may be more direct. At the supporting “data reports” associated with each indicator.10
the national scale, however, it is still difficult to relate rising
In any case, we should remember that forested ecosystems
levels of disturbance to specific measures of forest stocking
and their associated socioeconomic conditions differ consider-
or species composition. A major question in the coming years
ably between regions and localities in terms of both current
will be the extent to which trends in disturbance, such as the
conditions and trends. This situation is not surprising given the
three-fold increase in insect-induced tree mortality reported in
diversity of ecosystem types and socioeconomic conditions
Indicator 3.15, result in discernable effects to the biophysical
across our continent, but it is easy to overlook this fact when
indicators in Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5, and thereby the social and
viewing statistics at the national level. Based in large part on
economic indicators in Criterion 6.
the indicator data presented in Part II, we have identified some
Disturbance will continue to shape our management activities, of the major differences between regions as they relate to forest
demanding adaptive approaches in response to rapidly chang- sustainability. These differences include the following:
ing landscape conditions. Ideally, a shift to more adaptive
The growing influence of disturbance processes in the West.
management approaches would be registered in the indicators
in Criterion 7, but it is not clear exactly how since no indicator The prominence of the South as the country’s major timber
in the current or proposed Criterion 7 indicator set addresses supplier.
adaptive management (although, to be fair, it is difficult
to imagine how such an indicator would be formulated). The importance of public lands and environmental amenities
Moreover, since the impact of disturbance often extends across in the West.
jurisdictional and ownership boundaries and across different Population and development pressures on forests in the East.
9
See: http://www.firewise.org/.
10
These reports will be posted in electronic form on the project’s Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/).

Growing Influence of Disturbance Although the increasing prominence of the South is hardly
new, the fact that this trend has continued over the past decade
Processes in the West indicates a long-term shift in management focus and production
The information presented on forest disturbance in Criterion 3 capacity away from regions that were considered major timber
points to a marked increase in insect infestation and wildfires producers in the past and a growing concentration of activity,
in the forests of the West. This increase is tied to a complex set with concomitant economies of scale, in the South. This shift
of natural and human-induced dynamics involving fire suppres- in regional focus also results in changes in the sorts of issues
sion, increasing stand densities, aging of certain tree species, and concerns surrounding forest policy in regions experiencing
and warming temperatures. The result has been a dramatic reduced timber production. Debates that once focused on the
increase in the area of forest affected by bark beetle infestations relatively simple dichotomy between timber harvest and forest
in the pine forests of the interior West and a general increase preservation are evolving into more complex considerations of
in forest fuel loadings and fire susceptibility throughout the competing management priorities, including real estate develop-
West. Because of the resulting risk of widespread, catastrophic ment, expanded recreational use, and the mitigation of fire risk,
wildfire, along with the loss of life and property this can entail, all in a landscape where traditional forest management activity
forest health and fire prevention, which has been a longstanding is disappearing, at least at the scale existing in previous decades.
concern in the region, has emerged as a major focus for forest
The South, however, is not immune to the forces affecting
policy and management at both the regional and national levels.
forestry and forest management elsewhere. Anecdotal evidence
This concern is compounded by the fact that many forested
indicates that, in response to depressed timber prices and the
areas have experienced ongoing housing development resulting
divestiture of forest lands by timber management companies,
in more houses, and more lives, at risk.
planting and related management activities are decreasing. Fur-
Current efforts to address these issues range from insect control thermore, forests continue to grow and mature in other regions,
and broadscale forest thinning activities to the creation of adding timber value every year, so it would be premature to
defensible space around communities threatened by fire. The predict that the shift in the concentration of timber production
Forest Service and other management agencies are also using to the South will continue unabated in the coming decades.
prescribed fire and controlled natural burns more frequently in Such a prediction would require a much more involved analysis
ecosystems where fire has played an important role in the past, than can be presented in this report.
despite the attendant risk that the fire could escape control. The
sheer size of the wildfire problem, combined with the fact that Public Lands and Environmental
much of the most severely affected areas are under Federal
Amenities in the West
management, means that Federal land management agencies
(notably the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) Most Federal lands are located in the Western States. This
will be struggling with disturbance processes and forest health fact is largely an accident of history, because the West was
issues for many years to come. This ongoing struggle will force relatively un-owned and uninhabited (that is, uninhabited by
land managers and local public officials to confront difficult people of European descent) when the national forests and
questions regarding risk and responsibility in a landscape other major Federal land holdings were first established. This
increasingly prone to major wildfires. concentration of Federal lands in Western States also reflects
the fact that much of the region is either mountainous, arid,
or both, and thus not amenable to economic development or
Prominence of the South as the large-scale settlement.
Country’s Major Timber Supplier In any case, the concentration of public lands in the West has
Since the 1970s, the Southern Region (essentially the South- important ramifications for forest sustainability and manage-
eastern States and Texas) has consolidated its position as the ment. First, the public land in the West contains many of the
Nation’s major supplier of timber. Following harvest declines Nation’s wildest areas. Some of these are explicitly recognized
in the Northeast and Pacific Coast States, the South now as wilderness areas or national parks, but others are simply
produces more timber than the rest of the country combined. lands that have not been developed over the years for one
It also enjoys some of the highest tree growth rates in the reason or another. Whether they enjoy explicit designation
country and is home to the largest acreage of high-productivity or not, these wild lands constitute a fundamental aspect of
forest plantations. A divestiture of timber lands on the part of sustainability, both through their contribution to the various
major forest management companies in the other regions has measures presented in this report, and more generally through
accompanied this shift (although this is also occurring to some their continued existence as places that exist and evolve in
degree in the South). relative isolation from human activity and impact.

Another important aspect of Federal lands in the West is that
decisions about how to manage them fall within the public
Data Availability and Adequacy
domain, which means all citizens, even those living in distant When compiling this report, we had to explicitly consider the
regions, have a right to participate in decisionmaking processes types of data that we used, especially their quality and ad-
and a stake in their outcomes. With this comes a responsibility equacy in addressing their respective indicators. Moreover, this
to manage public lands in a wise and sustainable manner, report is only one step in a larger effort, and it is essential that
including a consideration for the well-being of local residents we view our data gathering, reporting, and analysis activities as
who directly depend on these lands. This responsibility and part of an ongoing process of sustainability reporting. Paying
scope for engagement simply does not exist in the case of close attention to data quality and working to improve it are
private forest lands. As a result, many of our most contentious important parts of this process.
debates involving forest management and sustainability have
The MP C&I is a comprehensive framework requiring a
been and will continue to be focused on public land manage-
broad range of data inputs spanning ecological, social, and
ment, and, thus, on forests in the West.
economic dimensions. Producing the 2010 report involved
an intensive search for available data that was undertaken by
Population and Development researchers with intimate knowledge of their respective fields.
Pressures on Forests in the East Consequently, the 2010 report represents, among other things,
With the exception of Ohio, all of the top 10 States with the a compendium of data sources that address forest sustainability
highest population density are found on the East coast, mostly in the United States. The adequacy and sufficiency of these data
to the North. At the same time, this region exhibits a relatively to address the indicators is an essential question.
high degree of forest cover. Although other States in the United Indicator 7.58 displays our assessment of the adequacy of data
States, notably California and Texas, have areas of high-population for each of the indicators in terms of coverage, recency, and
density, no region exhibits the same longstanding and cumulative frequency of reporting. Because of their reliance on FIA data,
degree of development pressure on forests as does the East coast. the indicators in Criterion 1 that track forest characteristics enjoy
In the East, the negative impacts from development are more excellent coverage, as do all of the indicators in Criterion 2. The
concentrated and the total value of green space and forest lands coverage for the species and forest fragmentation indicators in
is more apparent because of their relative scarcity in an area Criterion 1 is either less complete or less current. The indicators
with a large population. The situation is not entirely bad, how on forest disturbance in Criterion 3 are supported by forest inventory
ever, because the combination of concentrated negative effects and aerial survey data, which have not yet achieved complete
and recognized value is encouraging new forms of collaboration national coverage but are improving over time. Criterion 4
between citizens and government entities at the regional level draws on a number of different data sources, including point
to solve problems that are increasingly hard to ignore. sampling of ecosystem characteristics and State-level reports
The continuing declines in water quality and estuary health in about land-use designation and forest management practices.
the Chesapeake Bay region, and efforts to address them, serve Data adequacy in Criterion 4 varies on an indicator-by-indicator
as an example. In that region, linkages between regional forest basis, with soil condition enjoying the best coverage because
cover and the health of the watershed and estuary system have of a recent expansion of FIA sampling to include soil charac-
been explicitly recognized by local governing bodies, and initiatives teristics. The carbon accounting information in Criterion 5 also
have been launched at the county, State, and regional levels relies on FIA data, but, in this case, forest inventory information
to preserve and expand forested green space (see chapter 3). has to be converted into estimates of aboveground and below
In another example, New York City is addressing its need for ground carbon volumes, an additional step that requires a
clean water by paying private landowners in upstate New York number of assumptions and analytical techniques.
to maintain their land in forest cover. The City of Philadelphia Criterion 6 covers a broad range of social and economic condi-
is considering using trees to enhance “green infrastructure” tions, and data coverage varies accordingly. In general, those
aimed at reducing storm-water run-off and increasing water indicators describing activity in the traditional wood products
quality. Although it is perhaps premature to say that the East sector are well covered by standard reporting of production,
Coast will lead the way in finding innovative solutions to forest trade, and employment statistics. Similar statistics are not
sustainability in densely populated regions, it will certainly be a available for nonwood forest products, and the indicators have
place to look for such solutions. relied heavily on Federal permitting data for information on

these products. The new indicators on community resiliency bioenergy and biofuels production from forest biomass will
(Indicator 6.38) and the importance of forests to people largely determine our ability to track developments in the
(Indicator 6.44) are unique because we have used primary wood-based energy sector should they occur.
data collection through surveys designed specifically for each
indicator to address them. Data for the recreation indicators in
this criterion benefit from a now well-established program of Implications for Future Reporting
visitor sampling on forest service lands and enjoy relatively
The 2010 report marks the second iteration of our work in
complete national coverage.
addressing the question of forest sustainability to fulfill our
Criterion 7 is particularly challenging in terms of both data commitment to the Montréal Process. One of the things we
collection and interpretation. For the 2010 report we have have learned through this effort and similar efforts taking place
constructed an overarching framework for analyzing the across the United States and around the world is that sustain-
various pieces of information we have describing policies and ability reporting cannot be seen simply as a one-time effort
institutional arrangements (see explanation for Criterion 7 in after which everyone returns to their other responsibilities until
Part II). Whether we will be able to move this in the future the next report is due. Rather, reporting and accountability in
to a consistent and replicable reporting process is not clear, sustainable forest management needs to be an ongoing process
however, and much will depend on the new set of Criterion 7 involving continuous improvement in data, analysis, interpreta-
indicators that have emerged from the Montréal Process. tion, and communications guided by robust public participation
and a thorough scientific review process.
Overall, data adequacy has improved somewhat relative to
our assessment of adequacy in the 2003 report, but many While putting this report together, we identified a number of
challenges remain. Some of these challenges can be addressed areas where additional depth and synthesis are needed, and
by expanding ecosystem-sampling activities in areas such as we will address these areas with stand-alone partner reports.
forest disturbance, forest fauna, and forest stream conditions. Ideally, these reports will be published on a continuous basis,
For Criterion 6, better tracking of forest benefits and outputs with new reports commissioned as the need or interest arises.
outside of traditional forest products categories would con- Collaborators and stakeholder groups, notably the Roundtable
stitute a substantial improvement. Whether current industrial for Sustainable Forests, will serve as an essential resource in
reporting categories will allow for adequate measurement of generating ideas, interest, and support for this work.

Chapter 3
Broadening and Deepening

Our Commitment to Sustainability
Through continued use, the MP C&I framework is helping ex-

Purpose of This Chapter pand the network of stakeholders concerned about U.S. forests
Broadening and deepening our commitment to sustainable and is helping connect forest-based actions across boundaries
forests is an ongoing journey that is unfolding in many ways and geographic scales. The framework is also informing work
and at many scales within the United States. This chapter uses within other natural resource sectors, leading to more integrated
examples of various forest sustainability efforts at different and collaborative efforts. The sorts of cross-sectoral and
stages of development to demonstrate how the Montréal multiscale applications that many of these efforts exemplify are
Process Criteria and Indicators (MP C&I) are being used as a needed to track environmental progress and to achieve more
practical framework for a variety of purposes including, but not comprehensive ecosystem and sustainable development goals
limited to, monitoring, assessing, and reporting on the status of across all lands.
forests and other natural resources.
The examples highlighted, although not intended to be case Montréal Process Criteria and
studies, do offer insights into how early adopters of the MP Indicators as a Framework
C&I value having a common framework to help gather data, A framework is a supporting structure or system of ideas.
facilitate dialog, and/or make decisions. Experience reveals that The MP C&I were conceived as both a conceptual and an
the seven MP Criteria can be universally applied as a common operational framework for the conservation and sustainable
language or framework for sustainable forest management. Use management of forests by outlining the key environmental,
of the indicators, however, varies with “bottom up” adoption social, and economic parts of a complex task. In theory, as we
and implementation on the ground. The examples cited here, better understand and integrate this set of interrelated parts, we
along with similar efforts, portray a diversity of approaches and should be able to achieve more sustainable outcomes.
provide numerous lessons-learned and how-to’s for the applica-
tion of criteria and indicators in the pursuit of sustainability. The criteria broadly outline important forest categories or
dimensions that reflect public values and scientific principles
(e.g., the conservation of biological diversity). The indicators
All Lands Approach are value-neutral measures—quantitative and qualitative—of
the criteria and define the status and trends for each. When
We must work towards a shared vision—a vision that
conserves our forests and the vital resources important to considered together over time, the indicators will indicate
our survival while wisely respecting the need for a forest whether or not the United States is moving toward or away
economy that creates jobs and vibrant rural communities. from desired goals.
Importantly, this vision holds that the Forest Service must
not be viewed as an agency concerned only with the fate
of our national forests, but instead be acknowledged for Using the MP C&I as a Framework in
its work in protecting and maintaining all American forests, the United States
including State and private lands. Our shared vision adopts
an “all-lands approach…” MP member countries, including the United States, have
U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary
emphasized the importance of the MP C&I as a framework for
Tom Vilsack the conservation and sustainable management of forests. With
August 14, 2009 the experience gained from the production of the 2010 report,
and from the many efforts occurring throughout the United

States and elsewhere, we are moving the use of this framework Organizations referenced in the examples in the preceding text
from hypothetical to operational. From their beginning in the box are not the only ones using the MP C&I for the purpose
international arena, the MP C&I have been extended to numer- listed. But they are notable—each is an early adopter and user
ous local and regional applications. Because of their increased of the MP C&I to help frame dialog and take actions within
use, the MP C&I are no longer regarded in the United States as their respective spheres of influence. These and other examples
just an experiment or as useful only at the national scale. also are summarized and available via the Web site of the Round-
table on Sustainable Forests (described in the next section).
The United States is a diverse country—ecologically, cultur-
ally, and economically; and this diversity is reflected in the
approaches people are taking to ensure forest sustainability.
The work of many individuals, representing a range of
Broadening the Dialog in the
agencies, organizations and interests, is providing a better United States
understanding of the relevance and utility of the MP C&I at
When broadening the dialog about sustainable forests and
multiple geographic and time scales.
sustainable forest management, we need to recognize that the
Use of the MP C&I within the United States is still a work in responsibilities for U.S. forests are shared across a continuum
progress. Three basic yet enduring questions continue to direct of small to large ownerships within rural and urban areas.
the nationwide conversation. Public, private, and tribal landowners and managers share
on-the-ground stewardship responsibilities. Policymakers and
Are forest conditions improving? the general public, whether or not they own or manage forest
Are we moving toward a more sustainable future? land, also greatly affect the status and trends of forests in rural
and urban areas when making decisions about land use, energy
How do we collectively know? alternatives, and much more.
The activities shared in this chapter reveal that the MP C&I
are being used as a framework in many ways, all of which help
Broadening—Enlarging the Network
broaden and deepen U.S. commitment to sustainable forest
and natural resource management within more comprehensive Broadening the dialog about sustainable forests means
expanding the number and diversity of individuals and or-
sustainable development efforts. ganizations involved. Being involved includes understanding
the value of forests as forests, practicing sustainable forest
management, and/or fostering sustainable outcomes that
Various Ways the MP C&I are Being Used as a
include trees, woodlands, and forests. It also can facilitate
Framework
cooperation across administrative, ownership, and juris-
Conceptualizing dictional boundaries as well as cooperation across natural
Example: The National Association of State Foresters has resource sectors—forests, rangelands, water, and more—
used the MP C&I to characterize forest sustainability in its to improve ecosystem health and achieve other mutually
Principles and Guides for a Well-Managed Forest. desired environmental, social, and economic benefits.
Visioning and Planning
Example: Baltimore County, MD, is using the MP C&I to
envision desired future conditions, engage citizens in dialog,
Forest issues are now part of an increasingly wide array of
and set goals.
concerns confronting the United States that require connecting
Implementing
knowledge and actions across boundaries and across natural
Example: The State & Private Forestry Deputy Area of
the Forest Service used the MP C&I to update the Forest resource sectors. Addressing these concerns necessitates an
Stewardship Program for family and other nonindustrial active network of citizens who own, manage, and otherwise
private forest landowners. influence the conditions and trends occurring on the Nation’s
Monitoring, Assessing, and Reporting forests.
Example: Several States, including Maryland and Oregon,
are using the MP C&I as the basis for conducting
assessments of forest conditions. Increasing the Number and Diversity
Informing and Communicating of Participating Forest Stakeholders
Example: Twenty States in the Northeast and Midwest are Sustainable forest management as understood today builds on
using the MP C&I as a framework to organize and improve
decades of work—ranging from on-the-ground stewardship
accessibility to data and as a set of base indicators.
activities to international conversations about sustainable

forests and sustainable development. These discussions and meetings, workshops and stakeholder networks, stimulated a
activities often span multiple spatial scales, with local prac- variety of forest sustainability efforts, including the develop-
titioners interacting with people working at the national and ment of a Western North Carolina Report Card (WNCRC—see
international levels. Efforts under way bring together people box) organized around the seven MP Criteria.12
who are concerned about forests (communities of interest) and
people who are concerned about the benefits of trees and forests Cooperating Across Boundaries
in their particular places (communities of place).
Using the MP C&I as a framework to help improve data,
dialog, and decisions requires cooperating across administra-
Example—Roundtable on Sustainable Forests tive, ownership, and jurisdictional boundaries. Working
Nationally, a multistakeholder group called the Roundtable on collaboratively involves including many organizations. At the
Sustainable Forests (RSF) is helping promote the MP C&I as a same time, actions taken by government agencies can not only
common framework.
Stakeholders met for the first time in September 1998, and the
RSF was initially self-chartered in February 1999 “to serve as Western North Carolina Report Card
a forum to share information and perspectives that will enable The Western North Carolina Report Card on Forest Sustain-
better decisionmaking in the United States regarding sustainable ability (WNCRCFS) is a cooperative effort between the For-
forests.” The initial focus of the RSF was “to implement and est Service and the University of North Carolina at Asheville.
The Report Card provides a current picture of economic,
promote utilization of the Criteria and Indicators (C&I) contained
ecological, biological, and social information relevant to the
in the Santiago Declaration of the Montréal Process as a means subregion. By evaluating how forests are affected by natural
of measuring national progress towards achievement of this goal.” and human causes, the collaborators hope to inform deci-
Although the charter has since been revised, the RSF’s work sionmaking processes and policymaking in the area.
continues to be based on the MP C&I and the mantra “better The subregion, which includes 18 counties in the mountains
data leads to better dialog, which leads to better decisions.” of western North Carolina, has long been recognized as
a place of natural beauty marked by areas of ruggedness
Participants in the RSF are now focusing on four themes and isolation. It is a highly ranked destination for outdoor
identified in its work plan through 2011: enthusiasts and a zone of ecological importance. The area
includes the North Carolina section of the Blue Ridge Park-
1. Reporting and monitoring progress toward sustainable forests. way, the most visited national park unit; the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park (located in western North Carolina
2. Coordinating with related national data and indicator efforts. and Tennessee), the most visited national park; and the Pis-
gah and Nantahala National Forests, two of the most visited
3. Fostering sustainable forest management through the national forests in the system. Nine river basins split by the
application of the MP C&I. Eastern Continental Divide drain almost 7,500 square miles
and provide high-quality water to several large metropolitan
4. Engaging the broader community of forest stakeholders at areas in the Southeastern United States.
multiple scales.
Several issues threaten western North Carolina’s forest
The RSF is an open, inclusive body with participants represent- ecosystems. These include, but are not limited to, loss of
native species and natural communities; spread of invasive
ing Federal land management agencies, Federal and national
species; insect and disease infestations; air pollution; land-
research organizations, government agencies at State and local slides: and the loss of contiguous forest land.
levels, tribal entities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
The WNCRCFS closely follows the framework of the Mon-
including national associations and environmental NGOs, tréal Process Criteria and Indicators. All seven criteria are
scientific societies, universities, and more.11 evaluated. All the MP Indicators were initially considered,
but many were not suitable either because they were not
Many RSF participants also are working regionally and locally well adapted to a subregional scale or no current data was
to encourage more place-based efforts aimed at fostering available. Although the MP C&I uses 64 indicators, the
ecosystem-appropriate improvements and socially relevant WNCRCFS uses about 30.
outcomes. For instance, in the South, the RSF, through its
11
For more information about the RSF, see http://www.sustainableforests.net. The site includes meeting and workshop summaries, background information,
and links to related efforts.
12
See http://www.wncforestreportcard.org/ for the current Report Card and related project information.

influence work done on publicly owned and managed lands but
can also be a catalyst in influencing work across ownership and Northeastern Area (NA) Forest Sustainability
jurisdictional boundaries. A noteworthy effort under way in the Indicators Information System
Northeast and Midwest is encouraging regional cooperation. The NA Forest Sustainability Indicators Information System
is an online clearinghouse providing information on 18 base
indicators for monitoring and assessment in the Northeast
Example—Collaboration in the Northeast and and Midwest.
Midwest A wealth of information is available, allowing users to do the
The Forest Service’s State and Private Forestry Northeastern following:
Area (NA) and the 20 State forestry agencies covering the area Retrieve online data reports and additional resources for
from Maine to Minnesota and from Missouri to Maryland are each indicator.
collaborating on forest sustainability. Together the NA and the Dynamically graph data at regional, State, multi-State,
NA Association of State Foresters (NAASF) developed the NA and other scales.
Forest Sustainability Indicators Information System, which was View, print, and save graphs, maps, and data tables.
informed by the MP C&I, to understand and measure forest Track trends over time.
sustainability across the Northeast and Midwest. The system More information about the system and related materials
includes the following: is available on the NA Web site (http://www.na.fs.fed.us/
sustainability).
Selection of 18 base indicators, with at least one indicator
per MP criterion to track forest sustainability at regional and
State scales.
The NA Forest Sustainability Indicators Information System
Online reports and data downloads to track trends in forest
helps facilitate communication and data sharing among
health and sustainability at State, multi-State, and regional
multiple efforts occurring within and across State borders; it
scales.
also reveals differences in forest conditions within the region
A sourcebook on C&I. and cumulative changes across States and over time.
Links to additional data and resources related to forest Each State used the work done by the NA Forest Sustainability
sustainability. Indicators Information System to prepare for and inform the
development of Statewide Forest Resource Assessments and
Other mutually supportive efforts are under way within the Strategies that were completed in 2010 in accordance with the
20-State region, with the MP C&I and NA Forest Sustainability Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The NA and
Indicators Information System informing multi-State and State- NAASF developed regional guidelines for the assessments
level efforts. In the Great Lakes basin, where forests cover 60 process including a suggested framework that uses the MP
percent of land, every 2 years a binational conference is held by Criteria for organizing the Assessments and draws on the data
the Governments of the United States and Canada to report on compiled for the NA and NAASF base set of 18 indicators.
the state of the Great Lakes under a 1987 water quality agree- Most States in the Northeast and Midwest are referring to these
ment. Since 2004, a working group of the State of the Lakes regional guidelines and the C&I framework to determine what
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) has been using the MP C&I information to include in their statewide assessment.
as a starting point in its selection of forest indicators. Also in
the Upper Great Lakes Region, the Great Lakes Forest Alliance, Although it is too early to understand the lessons learned from
Inc., has worked with Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and the statewide assessment processes, some preliminary ideas are
the Canadian province of Ontario to focus on pressing issues emerging. Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
threatening the region and to connect the issues-based work to New Hampshire, and New York report that the use of the MP
assessment efforts informed by the MP C&I. State-level efforts Criteria and the region’s 18 base indicators allow for more
such as the “New Hampshire Forest Resources Plan Revision comprehensive reports, help ensure scientific information is
Assessment Report,” Maryland’s Strategic Forest Assessment, included, and provide a good tool for communicating with
and Wisconsin’s Forest Sustainability Framework also are helping partners and the public. These preliminary benefits echo those
test and refine the MP C&I as a framework. These efforts reported in 2006 by New Hampshire in its “Forest Resources
complement national- and regional-scale assessment and Plan Revision Assessment Report” (New Hampshire 2006).
reporting activities led by the Forest Service.

Learning About Tribal Perspectives Incorporating Data About Urban and
Concepts of sustainability vary among forest owners, Agricultural Forest Resources in the
managers, and users. Although forest lands managed by or United States
for tribal communities in the United States exist in many
Concerted efforts by resource managers, urban planners, and
States, developing a collective voice on tribal views of forest
affiliated stakeholder groups are under way to incorporate
sustainability has proven difficult. A number of efforts within
information about urban and agricultural forest resources into
the United States have been pursued in recent years to better
discussions about sustainability, including sustainable forest
understand tribal perspectives about forest sustainability and to
management. U.S. forests currently reflect a dynamic mix of
learn how to use MP C&I to inform tribal efforts at sustainable
land uses and land cover changes. There is a growing need for
forest management.
information to address problems at various scales and locations
After the release of the National Report on Sustainable (for example, urban areas in which municipalities may be
Forests—2003, the Intertribal Timber Council worked with the reaching legal limits set for water and air quality and facing
Evergreen Foundation, Forest Service, and other participants potentially significant economic consequences).
of the RSF to gather tribal perspectives. They shared these
Sustainable forest management discussions in the United States
perspectives in a special Winter 2005 to 2006 issue of the
rely heavily on Federal data-gathering efforts. Neither the
Evergreen magazine on “Forestry in Indian Country: Models of
Forest Service (via the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program
Sustainability for our Nation’s Forests?”13
(FIA)) nor USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (via
the National Resources Inventory (NRI)) have been routinely
Example—Cultural Resources on the Yakama and systematically collecting data on the status and trends of
Reservation Forest trees and forests in urban and agricultural settings. If urban and
Among the contributors to the special issue of Evergreen were agricultural trees or forests do not meet FIA and NRI program-
the managers of the Yakama Reservation Forest, which totals matic definitions, then they are not counted and therefore not
650,000 acres within the 1.4-million-acre Yakama Reservation included in national estimates.
in south-central Washington State. They pursued a multiyear
For a variety of reasons, participating agencies and other forest
project to more broadly understand cultural resources after
stakeholders need to know more about forest resources in urban
reviewing the 2003 set of MP C&I. The managers believed the
and agricultural settings. Therefore, in conjunction with the
MP C&I defined cultural resources too narrowly within just
2010 National Report, the Forest Service will publish a partner
two indicators of Criterion 6, and they wanted to develop quan-
report focusing on urban and agricultural forest resources, and
titative and qualitative indicators for assessing the effectiveness
it will contain a strategy for incorporating the information in
of Yakama Nation land management policies and practices
ongoing reporting activities.
in sustaining cultural resources on their lands. The managers
interviewed tribal elders, conducted field assessments, and used
the results to improve forest management planning and develop Example—Sustainability Efforts in the Greater
a long-term strategy for improving forest health problems. The Kansas City Region
resulting forest plan protects cultural resources such as native Traditionally, when communities like those in the greater
plants that are traditionally used or otherwise valued by the Kansas City region invest in stormwater management infra-
tribe, artifacts, and sites of traditional significance. structure, they do so through grey engineering (e.g., storm
drains and sewers). The Mid-America Regional Council
Yakama forest managers’ views about cultural resources and
(MARC) and USDA’s National Agroforestry Center (NAC) are
the use of related indicators have been shared domestically
collaborating to put trees to work to address stormwater issues
with others through meetings of the Intertribal Timber Council
and to accomplish other environmental, social, and economic
and the RSF. In 2007, the managers presented their views
goals for the 2 million people in the region. By considering
at the international Sharing Indigenous Wisdom Conference
nature an integral component in planning and designing
sponsored by the College of Menominee Nation located in
decisions, the 120 cities and 9 counties in the region are
Wisconsin.14
incorporating public and private open spaces; greenways; trails;
and working farm, ranch, and corporate lands into a coherent
13
For a copy of the special issue, see http://evergreenmagazine.com/magazine/issue/Winter_2005_2006.html.
14
Presentations made by participants in the Yakama project are available on the conference Web site at http://www.sharingindigenouswisdom.org.

regional smart growth strategy. Moreover, by maximizing the Understanding Tropical Forests in the
“green infrastructure” potential in the region, MARC and NAC
are seeking ways to ensure development occurs in an environ-
United States
mentally friendly fashion. The United States possesses a diverse collection of tropical
forests, virtually all of which exist on islands in the Caribbean
MARC and NAC pulled together an impressive array of and Pacific. In the Caribbean, tropical forests are found on
resources to support its smart growth strategy. These include: Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In the Pacific, they
a natural resources inventory; updated engineering design are found on Hawaii, three U.S. territories (American Samoa,
standards and planning guidelines for site design and storm- Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam),
water management; development of model stream protection and three freely associated States (the Republic of the Marshall
and management policies; creation of a regional Academy for Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of
Sustainable Communities, delivering leadership and profes- Palau).
sional development training; and a nearly completed regional
sustainability indicator framework informed by the MP C&I In 2000, Hawaii reviewed the MP C&I and released a first
framework. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Forest approximation report that attempts to measure its forest sustain-
Service, and area local governments are working together to ability. The Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife identified
support this smart growth strategy.15 the status of collective knowledge about Hawaiian forests
and highlighted what data was needed to facilitate Hawaii’s
Example—Great Plains Tree and Forest Inva- progress toward sustainable forest management. Their report,
entitled State of Hawaii’s Forests 2000, provides information
sives Initiative
for decisionmakers at State and Federal levels.
The Great Plains Tree and Forest Invasives Initiative (GPI) is
a multi-State cooperative effort involving the Forest Service The Forest Service International Institute of Tropical Forests,
and State forestry agencies in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, which is headquartered in Puerto Rico, has evaluated the
and South Dakota that focuses on invasive pests (such as the MP C&I against indicators developed for tropical countries
emerald ash borer [Agrilus planipennis]) that may threaten tree and determined that the MP C&I are suitable for use in the
resources in the northern plains. Participants seek to inventory Caribbean. In addition, the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest
tree resource using methods compatible with those of the FIA Research Station completed a needs assessment for the Pacific
Program so they can integrate efforts and obtain a more holistic Islands and implemented trial plots for the FIA Program; the
understanding of the resource.16 Pacific Southwest Region worked with the Pacific Islands
Imagery Consortium to complete a vegetation mapping and
In 2008, the initial GPI inventory data collected from 400 rural monitoring project for U.S.-affiliated islands; and the Pacific
plots across the four States indicate that an estimated 1.3 mil- Southwest Station’s Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry in
lion acres with trees provide agroforestry benefits or functions Hawaii has worked with Forest Service and State counterparts
not inventoried by the FIA Program. These 1.3 million acres of to conduct related research and do outreach needed to restore,
windbreaks, shelterbelts, riparian buffers, and other tree group- protect, and sustain forests of the Pacific.
ings across the rural landscape do not meet the FIA definition
of forested land use (10 percent stocked, at least 1 acre in These formative efforts provide the foundation for a companion
size, and at least 120 feet wide). Additional insights are being project under way that will report on U.S. tropical forests using
gleaned from data collected on 800 urban plots. The initial the MP C&I as the organizing framework. Researchers are
inventory results suggest many more acres of tree resources collecting data and developing a summary as part of the 2010
exist in the Great Plains than the 4.1 million acres of forest reporting process. This work is complicated by the diversity
reported in the Forest Resources of the United States, 2007 of ecological, social, and economic conditions that prevail on
report which includes only lands that meet the FIA Program the islands in question, and by the widely varying availability
definition. Although not directly related to the MP C&I, the of data, but the need to understand these valuable and often
GPI embodies the idea that better data will lead to better dialog unique ecosystems remains a major impetus for the effort.
and thus better decisions. It also lays the groundwork for the
eventual inclusion of agricultural and urban forest resources in
a sustainability-reporting framework similar to the MP C&I.
15
Information about project accomplishments and future plans is available on line at http://www.marc.org/Environment/Smart_Growth.htm.
16
Information about the GPI is available on the Nebraska Forest Service Web site at http://www.fs.unl.edu/EAB.asp.

Engaging Across Natural Resource Example—Sustainable Water Resources
Sectors Roundtable
The pathway to sustainability involves more integrated The Advisory Committee on Water Information created the
environmental and natural resource policies and actions. Recent Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable (SWRR) in 2002 to
successes using criteria and indicators are not limited to the promote the exchange of information among representatives of
forest sector. Organizations interested in sustainable natural government, industry, and environmental, professional, public
resource management are drawing inspiration and lessons from interest, and academic groups.
the use of the MP C&I as a framework for understanding and Rather than agreeing on a strict definition of sustainability, the
measuring forest sustainability. Other national multistakeholder SWRR adopted the Brundtland Commission’s more general
processes focusing on rangelands and water resources have definition of sustainable development as a starting point
identified related criteria and indicators. for discussions about water sustainability. The SWRR now
proposes a five-part framework for organizing water sustain-
Example—Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable ability indicators:
Since 2001, the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable (SRR) has Water availability.
brought together representatives of agencies and organizations
concerned about the Nation’s 770 million acres of rangelands. Water quality.
The SRR participants began their work by identifying impor- Human uses and health.
tant rangeland issues, and then they organized them into the
Environmental health.
following five criteria for rangeland sustainability:
Infrastructure and institutions.
Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources
on rangelands. The SWRR also developed a framework for tracking and
understanding changes to the health of its fresh and coastal
Conservation and maintenance of plant and animal resources
waters, surface and ground water, wetlands, and watersheds.
on rangelands.
Participants developed a methodology to understand the
Maintenance of productive capacity on rangelands. implications of long-term changes for ecosystems, communi-
ties, and industry.18
Maintenance and enhancement of economic and social
benefits to current and future generations.
Informing Educators and Students
Legal, institutional, and economic framework for rangeland
Through Project Learning Tree
conservation and sustainable management.
Project Learning Tree (PLT) and its partners around the
SRR participants then identified a set of 27 core indicators to country offer more than 2,000 professional development
initially assess the status and trends of factors affecting range- workshops for teachers each year. Now reaching some 30,000
land sustainability. Adopting and monitoring key indicators educators, PLT uses the forest as a model, or “window on the
of U.S sustainable rangeland management remains the highest world,” to increase students’ understanding of the environment.
goal of the SRR and its stakeholders. In addition to the workshops, the PLT produces suite curricu-
lum guides, which include seven stand-alone modules for high
Three agencies participating in the SRR—the Forest Service,
school teachers on key topics. A prominent example is Global
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Bureau of
Connections: Forests of the World, which was published
Land Management—share responsibility for various aspects of
in 2008 by the American Forest Foundation and the World
rangeland inventory and assessment. They are pursuing a pilot
Forestry Center.
project in eastern Oregon to demonstrate how they can work
together to assess and report on rangeland conditions at the The Global Connections curriculum module provides secondary-
national level using a common set of core indicators.17 level educators—both formal and nonformal—with an engaging
series of nine project-based activities to help students gain
17
Information about the SRR is available at http://sustainablerangelands.warnercnr.colostate.edu/.
18
More information regarding the SWRR is available at http://acwi.gov/swrr/.

understanding of and appreciation for the diversity of world
forest environments. The activities encourage students to Deepening—Understanding Systems and Working
investigate the environmental, social, and economic aspects Across Geographic Scales
of human interactions with, and dependence on, forests. Deepening the dialog about sustainable forests involves
Each activity provides students with an opportunity to apply more completely understanding the workings of both
nature-based ecosystems and human-centric institutional
scientific processes and higher order thinking skills in a variety
systems. And making improvements at broader landscape
of disciplines. or spatial scales involves developing deeper understand-
ings of the way natural and human systems are connected
One activity focuses on students developing and evaluating
across geographic scales. It links the knowledge gained
their own criteria for defining and measuring forest sustainabil- from using a common framework to develop data and other
ity and presents information about the history of the Montréal information to decisions made and actions taken individually
Process (MP) and about the MP Criteria and Indicators (C&I). and collaboratively at and across scales.
Teams of students then create science-fair style displays for
each criterion and discuss the environmental, social, and
economic links between them. This activity has proven popular Across the country, various processes are under way for
with teachers and students and has been used in both science advancing and linking use of the MP C&I across geographic
and social studies courses. scales. One approach has been quite deliberate, with formal
Ten thousand copies of Global Connections are now in print processes for encouraging linkages and providing mutual
and the module has been distributed at professional development support while testing and using the MP C&I as a common
workshops across the Nation during meetings of the National framework. Another approach has been more laissez faire, with
Science Teachers Association, North American Association practitioners testing and using the MP C&I at various scales
for Environmental Education, State forestry and environmental and letting the institutional linkages and associated actions
educators, and the World Forestry Center’s International across scales emerge.
Educators Institute. With the American Forest Foundation’s
support, regional training has continued, and 17 States have Encouraging Linkages Across
implemented plans to adopt Global Connections while working Geographic Scales
with Forest Service staff and other local partners to provide
The MP C&I is advancing sustainable forestry in a more
training and materials for teachers and natural resource profes-
interconnected fashion by focusing our collective attention on
sionals.19
a shared set of measures and objectives that people care about.
Armed with a common vocabulary and database with which to
describe forest sustainability, government employees, stake-
Deepening the Dialog in the holders, and the public at large can better share information
United States between different efforts and locales, integrating their monitor-
ing and reporting activities. The result is better communication
Deepening the dialogue about sustainable forests involves
and better decisionmaking.
agencies and other organizations understanding the power
of the MP C&I as a common framework—and putting it to By being more coordinated and directed to an explicit set
use across organizational boundaries and geographic scales of sustainability goals, management actions on the part of
to improve forest and landscape conditions. The MP C&I’s different individuals can add up to landscape-level improve-
comprehensive nature is one of its major strengths. It enables ments, crossing the continuum of rural and urban places and
us to consider all aspects—social, economic and ecological—of connecting to other sectors outside the forest community. For
the forest system in question. Together, these aspects provide example, in the Northeast and Midwest, Forest Service and
context about the human systems as well as the ecological State forestry agencies are using the MP C&I as a basis for
systems within which individual and collaborative actions are monitoring and tracking progress across a 20-State region; in
taken. The result is a web of relationships rather than neatly Maryland, collaboration between local, regional, and Federal
defined up-down hierarchies. entities is leading to strategic efforts to improve watershed
conditions at the State and local levels as well as within the
broader Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
19
More information about Global Connections and other PLT curriculum is available on line at http://www.plt.org.

Example—Collaboration in Maryland multiple scales encourages data coordination and the sharing of
technology and “know how,” and it facilitates the tracking of
Nested and networked efforts within Maryland draw support
changes such as forest loss.20
from each other and present opportunities to unify goals and
actions. The efforts also create the potential to feed into larger Local Initiatives by Baltimore County, MD
landscape-level efforts, such as the Chesapeake Bay Water- Baltimore County, through its Forest Sustainability Program,
shed. In 2006, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, a group is increasing the public’s understanding about forest benefits,
with representatives from adjacent States, regional associations, organizing information, setting goals, and taking action in col-
and the Federal Government, signed a directive committing all laboration with State and Federal agencies and others to assess
members to work to retain and expand forests in the Chesa- forest health, protect forests, strategically reforest, and enhance
peake Watershed (Chesapeake Executive Council, Directive landowner stewardship.
06-1, September 22, 2006). The directive explicitly recognizes
that what happens on the land influences the health of the bay. Through the Green Infrastructure training offered by The Con-
Maryland’s forests are an important part of the Chesapeake servation Fund and others, the Baltimore County Department of
Watershed, and the State has been working to integrate State- Environmental Protection and Resource Management became
and county-level forest management efforts to enhance water involved in a project to help communities use the MP C&I as a
quality in Chesapeake Bay while meeting the many other goals framework for sustainable forest management. The department
associated with sustainable forest management. documented the work in a case study, which is being used in
the ongoing training program to help communities and their
Maryland’s Strategic Actions partners make natural resources and natural systems part of
In Maryland, protecting and managing forests is challenging local and regional plans and community decisions.
because of urban development, forest land fragmentation and
parcelization, and other pressures. Forests that once covered Baltimore County’s Natural Resource Manager used the MP
more than 90 percent of Maryland’s landscape now cover only C&I to engage stakeholders and develop a Forest Sustainability
41 percent; the counties, landowners, and other jurisdictions Strategy for the county in 2005, resulting in a report entitled
share responsibility for the remaining area. The State of Our Forests—2007. Implementation is progressing
with and through partners: criteria-level work is under way (for
Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources has used the example, compiling data), the county is linking its strategy with
MP C&I to do State-level assessments and to prioritize State other local initiatives through capital and operating programs,
investments. Its Strategic Forest Lands Assessment (SFLA), and the county is sharing its experiences with others in the
completed in 2003, provides geographic information system State, region, and Nation through networks reaching forest
tools to strategically identify important forests and to support stakeholders and local governments.
land management planning and land use decisions needed to
protect forests and the State’s natural lands, which are referred Locally, forest sustainability efforts are part of Baltimore
to as green infrastructure. County’s Green Renaissance initiative, which focuses explicitly
on forests and trees. The efforts also link to State-level strate-
Use of the MP C&I to help organize State-level natural gies and programs for retaining and expanding forests to further
resource information for assessing forest conditions and Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessment, the SFLA, and
identifying strategic forests has helped facilitate dialog across the Chesapeake Bay Program. In 2008, Baltimore County
geographic scales, ownership boundaries, and program goals, hosted a workshop that introduced forest sustainability and the
supporting a complex mix of planning and management MP C&I as a common framework to other local Governments
activities ranging from the site-level to county, to statewide, in the State and region.21
and to the Bay region as a whole. Maryland officials are using
assessment data, indicators, and computer tools for county Baltimore County’s forest-related initiatives are gaining increased
planning, watershed planning, landowner outreach, and much domestic and international recognition. Domestically, a number
more. Maryland’s use of the MP C&I also has assisted the of methods have been used to share progress with forest stake-
United States in testing and refining them for use at the national holders, through the RSF, and with local government planners
level. State employees have found that applying the MP C&I at and other officials, through the American Planning Association
and the National Association of Local government Environ-
More information about Maryland’s efforts is available online at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/planning/sfla/index.htm.

20
Baltimore County’s Forest Sustainability Strategy and 2007 report are available on line at http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/agencies/environment/
21
workgroup/programimplementation.html. The case study is on the Green Infrastructure Web site at http://www.greeninfrastructure.net.

mental Professionals. Internationally, a forthcoming report Oregon developed the Forestry Program for Oregon through
from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization a deliberative process that recognized that to be sustainable
(FAO) will include the Baltimore County story. and successful, the State had to manage different forests for
different purposes. The State was able to reach a wide audience
Letting Connections Across Scales through advisory committees, and its approach to consensus-
building embraces the diversity of its population, rather than
Emerge considering it a barrier.
In the United States, many different entities share natural resource
management responsibilities, and each has its own management Using the Forestry Program for Oregon and the Oregon Indi-
objectives. In order to share information or tackle specific issues cators as an information base, the State is collaborating with the
that require a more integrated approach spanning geographic or Forest Service in the areas of National Forest System planning
institutional boundaries, managers need to use a more unifying and monitoring, Statewide assessments required by State and
framework. The MP C&I are well suited for this role. Private Forestry law, and an Interagency Mapping and Analysis
Project being led by the Pacific Northwest Research (PNW)
In the Western United States, for example, various organiza- Station. The research station and other cooperators seek to
tions have used the MP C&I to inform their own work or integrate forest indicators with other data to develop alternative
advance their own efforts, and they are beginning to discuss future scenarios and management strategies to address them at
linkages across geographic scales. The most prominent multiple scales.
example is the State of Oregon, where opportunities for greater
collaboration across geographic scales and organizational In these concrete ways, Oregon’s Board of Forestry is creating
boundaries are emerging. a statewide dialog through the use of the MP C&I. An Oregon
Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management Web site has
been developed and is being expanded as new indicator data
Example—Efforts Under Way in Oregon
become available. The Oregon indicators also are being used in
In Oregon, as in other places, there exist polarizing political the State Forest Resource Assessment, which will be completed
views regarding the appropriate balance of environmental, in 2010. The Board of Forestry is considering establishing an
social, and economic benefits from the State’s public and Oregon Roundtable on Sustainable Forests to further engage
private forests. More than one-half of Oregon’s forest land is multiple stakeholders through collaborative efforts to advance
federally managed. C&I processes could stimulate ideas about understanding, assessment, and reporting of forest sustain-
how to address problems in a more explicit and integrated ability, and to encourage forest resource management that
manner and to collectively move trends in forest conditions in a considers environmental, social, and economic factors in an
direction more in line with public desires and political support. integrated fashion.22
Statewide Efforts Led by State Forestry Organizations
By adopting national and international sustainable forest Example—Sustainability Efforts by the
management concepts, forest leaders in Oregon hope to reduce Mt. Hood National Forest
polarization and find common ground on forest policies. As One of the State’s Federal cooperators is the Mt. Hood
a result, the State, via the Oregon Board of Forestry and the National Forest, which is located in western Oregon adjacent
Oregon Department of Forestry, is using the MP Criteria as an to the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The Mt. Hood
integrated policy and technical framework. The State has used National Forest serves as a scenic landmark and backyard to
the MP Criteria to foster conversation about all forests in the more than 2 million people who depend on it for a range of
State and to measure progress toward sustainability goals. environmental, social, and economic benefits.
The 2003 Forestry Program for Oregon is a strategic plan Since the 1990s, the Mt. Hood Forest Supervisor has been
that sets out the Board’s vision for all the State’s public and using a systems approach to advance sustainability. As the Fed-
private forests, and goals and objectives to guide the Board’s eral commitment to sustainable natural resource management
decisions. The seven goals of the Forestry Program for Oregon has increased, the Mt. Hood National Forest has participated in
are directly related to the MP. The Board has also endorsed scientific, market, policy, and operations-based sustainability
19 Oregon Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. efforts, all of which were informed by the MP C&I.
Although the indicators themselves remain neutral, Oregon has
set forth desired trends or targets for each.
22
The 2003 Forestry Program for Oregon and the associated 2007–2009 Oregon Forests Report are available online at http://www.oregonforestry.gov.

Mt. Hood National Forest used a scientific approach to and ecosystems in combination with discussions about societal
complete a Local Unit Criteria and Indicators Development values serves as a foundation for dialog about desired condi-
(LUCID) project, and it used a market-based approach to tions. The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences learned
participate in a national evaluation of forest management cer- from indicator practitioners that indicator selection and use is
tification processes. From a policy perspective, the Mt. Hood primarily a social process to be informed and supported by data
National Forest is matching its annual Forest Plan Monitoring and science.23
Report to the format of the Forestry Program for Oregon. In
Discreet actions undertaken at the local level have a better
its day-to-day operations, the national forest is participating in
chance of adding up to larger landscape-scale improvements if
agency efforts to change its levels and patterns of consumption.
managers work systematically and explicitly consider linkages
Employees on the Mt. Hood National Forest believe that using to nearby actions by others. Making these landscape-level
a common set of criteria assists communications and facilitates improvements is an adaptive process in which we learn by do-
coordination across boundaries and scales. They are using ing, checking outcomes against expectations, adjusting actions
this approach to meet the requirements of the National Forest accordingly, and paying attention to what others are doing. In a
Management Act of 1976, which directs the Forest Service recent report, Fedkiw and Rose contend that “management for
to use monitoring and assessment to evaluate the effects of sustainable forests is landscape management as distinguished
land management, combining the consistency needed by the from site-specific forest management,” and it needs an enabling
Forest Service with the flexibility needed to respond to local governance framework for identifying preferred outcomes
circumstances. The Oregon Department of Forestry views the (Fedkiw and Rose 2008). The MP C&I provides both a means
incorporation of the Forestry Program for Oregon into the Mt. of organizing a comprehensive set of information about the
Hood National Forest’s monitoring report as a very positive landscape, thus promoting a shared understanding of baseline
development and a model for other national forests. conditions, and a framework for organizing public dialog in the
identification of desired outcomes. By promoting consistency
across different efforts and locations, it further enhances our
Monitoring by the Mt. Hood National Forest ability to integrate our work across multiple spatial scales.
Each year, the Mt. Hood National Forest completes a
monitoring report. In recent years, it facilitated the transition
of the monitoring report to a systems-based framework to Understanding Ecosystem Conditions
study many competing influences as one complete system Understanding what it takes to keep ecosystems healthy
in a sustainability context. The latest report for fiscal year and what it takes to restore degraded ecosystems challenges
2008 is organized by the seven strategies in the 2003 For-
forest managers, scientists, and others. The concept of strong
estry Program for Oregon.
sustainability, as advanced in chapter 1 of this report, holds that
In the report, the Mt. Hood National Forest states, “…the
question of sustainability has become a key consideration in
opportunities for making social and economic progress must be
most human endeavors…and the key question is not how pursued within environmental realities. Therefore, understand-
much should we harvest or how much should we protect, ing the state of the Nation’s ecosystems, including but not
but rather is the overall system sustainable.” limited to forests, is critical.
National forest monitoring reports and related studies are
available on the Mt. Hood National Forest Web site (http:// Example—State of the Nation’s Ecosystems
www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/).
Project
The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems project is a collaborative
venture commissioned by the White House Office of Science
Integrating Efforts To Achieve
and Technology Policy (OSTP) in 1997, later joined by the
Landscape-Scale Improvements Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 2002. The work
The health of forests and the ecosystem contributions of trees is led by The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the
and forests to landscapes involve complex and dynamic natural Environment and is supported by corporate, foundation, and
and social relationships. Forest conditions are influenced by Federal funds. Working groups and multistakeholder technical
both nature-based ecosystem processes and human-centric committees design and report on sets of indicators measuring
institutional processes. Scientific information about forests conditions and trends for six of the Nation’s ecosystems: coasts
The Manomet Center’s report, which was sponsored by the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry, is available at http://ncseonline.org/
23
NCSSF/.

and oceans; farmlands; forests; fresh waters; grasslands and Example—Principles and Guides for a Well-
shrub lands; and urban and suburban landscapes. The Heinz Managed Forest
Center has maintained a very focused and deliberate effort to
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is a
obtain balanced representation from four social sectors: aca-
nonprofit organization representing the directors of all 50 State
demia, industry, advocacy organizations, and public agencies.
forestry agencies, the 8 U.S. territories, and the District of
The Heinz Center released the initial report from the project Columbia. The NASF has a long history of supporting greater
in 2002. It released a second version on June 17, 2008, titled use of the MP C&I and advocating support for nationwide
The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems 2008: Measuring the forest inventory and monitoring efforts, the data from which
Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States (H. underpin many of the biophysical indicators found in Criteria 1
John Heinz Center 2008). The 2008 report has more data and through 5 of this report. In 1998, NASF and five other orga-
improved indicators, with a core set of 13 national indicators nizations encouraged the Council on Environmental Quality
describing the overall condition and use of the Nation’s (CEQ) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
ecosystems. A companion policy document to the 2008 report, support Federal actions and encourage Federal interagency
Environmental Information: Roadmap to the Future (H. John coordination to more effectively implement the MP C&I.
Heinz Center 2008b), notes critical gaps in environmental
It is not sufficient, however, to focus only on the actions of
information and highlights management challenges.24
Federal agencies. More than two-thirds of the Nation’s forests
are privately owned by more than 10 million owners living in
Linking Institutional Commitments rural, suburban, and urban areas who make decisions every day
and Actions about how to protect, manage, and use their trees and wood-
The potential for creating more integrated efforts across lands. Furthermore, approximately 45 percent of all forest land
geographic scales depends on our ability to find ways to link in the United States is under nonindustrial private ownership—
institutional commitments and actions. In the United States, mostly small-holders not actively managing their forests for
many individuals and organizations are shaping forest sustain- timber or related outputs. To reach this diverse ownership base,
ability, and over time they are finding ways to link their efforts NASF has taken actions in collaboration with others to support
and mutually support each other. family and other nonindustrial forest landowners in their work.
In previous sections of this chapter, we highlight the collabora- Policy and Program Guidance
tion of the Forest Service and the 20 State forestry agencies in
The NASF worked with the Forest Service Cooperative
the Northeast and Midwest; we also note the strategic actions
Forestry Staff to develop Principles and Guides for a Well-
being led by Maryland and local initiatives enacted by Balti-
Managed Forest, published in 2003.25 We can use these
more County, MD. These actions are institutionally linked to
principles to assess the potential effectiveness and capacity
a number of other national and State-level activities described
of any system or program aimed at helping forest owners or
below and displayed in table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Linking Institutional Commitments and Actions Informed by the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators.
Scale Activities Lead Organization(s)
International Montréal Process Criteria & Indicators (MP C&I) Twelve MP countries, including the United States
National Principles and Guides for a Well-Managed Forest; and A National Association of State Foresters (in collaboration with the
Stewardship Handbook—A Handbook for Planning, Managing Forest Service)
and Protecting Your Woods, Your Investment and Your
Environment
Forest Stewardship Program Standards and Guidelines Forest Service State & Private Forestry (Cooperative Forestry)
Multi-State Regional Forest Sustainability Indicators System (including 18 base Forest Service Northeastern Area State & Private Forestry (in
indicators) collaboration with 20 State forestry agencies)
Statewide Strategic Forest Lands Assessment Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Educational Assistance to Private Forest Landowners Member universities of the Sustainable Forests Partnership (e.g.,
Pennsylvania)
Countywide Forest Sustainability Strategy; and The State of Our Baltimore County, MD
Forests—2007
24
More information is available online at http://www.heinzcenter.org.
25
See http://www.stateforesters.org/node/201.

managers achieve a well-managed forest while attaining their Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University devel-
objectives for their land. The seven principles outlined in the oped field manuals and short courses for underrepresented
guidance were released in February 2003 and follow the seven populations and forest landowners.
MP Criteria.
These materials can all be found on the Sustainable Forest
The NASF then developed guidance for nonindustrial private Partnership’s Web site.
landowners to help them manage their own forests based on the
The universities are working with State forestry personnel,
2003 Principles and Guides. In February 2005, the organization
extension agents, and woodland owner associations to dissemi-
released A Stewardship Handbook—A Handbook for Planning,
nate the materials. Although the State-specific materials address
Managing and Protecting Your Woods, Your Investment and
more local concerns and forest management dynamics such as
Your Environment.
invasive plants, fire prevention, and carbon sequestration, they
Subsequently, the Forest Service used the Principles and can be duplicated and customized to match State needs. Project
Guides to revise the national Forest Stewardship Program results and materials are also being shared at national extension
Standards and Guidelines to help private forest-owners develop education and natural resource conferences.
plans for the sustainable management of their forests.26
Increasing Institutional Capacity
Educational Assistance to Private Forest Land- National reporting on forest sustainability relies on extensive
owners data collection and stakeholder participation, and it highlights
Universities are also using the NASF handbook to help the need for institutional capacity on the part of agencies and
educate private landowners about the concepts and practices of organizations to collaboratively and continuously monitor,
sustainable forest management. Through the university-based assess, and report on forest conditions. This need does not end
Sustainable Forests Partnership, five academic institutions at the edge of the forest, however, and a number of efforts are
have worked with their respective State forestry agencies to working to increase our reporting capacity within larger natural
translate the handbook into State-specific educational materi- resource and environmental arenas.
als to supplement the handbook. The educational materials,
developed by the following universities in collaboration with Example—National Environmental Status and
forest landowners and State forestry representatives, translate Trends Indicator Project
the MP C&I into local stewardship principles that landowners
As the Heinz Center and its partners have worked together on
can use to clarify their ownership goals:
the state of the Nation’s ecosystems project, discussions also
Auburn University (in Alabama) worked with the Alabama have progressed about the institutional capacity of Federal
Cooperative Extension System to create the Alabama agencies responsible for monitoring, assessing, and reporting
Stewardship Handbook based on the MP C&I, a four-fold on natural resources and the environment. Shortly after the
brochure on the stewardship principles, and an instructional initial State of the Nation’s Ecosystems report was issued in
article on how forest owners can market carbon credits. 2002, the CEQ convened a number of meetings among Federal
agencies about the capacity to report regularly on natural and
Oregon State University used a county-based approach to
environmental resources using a comprehensive set of indicators.
develop guidance and sources of information for private
landowners and created supplements for the western and The CEQ-led dialog resulted in agency representatives
eastern parts of the State. developing options for assembling data and reporting regularly
on resource conditions and trends. The options focused on
Pennsylvania State University created a four-fold brochure
using a small set of high-level environmental indicators that
describing State-level resources, and wrote a seven-part
would be analogous to the sorts of major economic indicators
forest landowner newsletter.
regularly reported by the Department of Commerce and OMB
Cornell University (in New York) developed a six-part (for Federal budgets).
webinar series on the stewardship principles.
In 2006, an interagency group worked with the National
Academy of Public Administration to assess institutional
26
The revised program direction, issued in September 2005, is available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/, and the NASF handbook,
reissued in 2009, at http://www.stateforesters.org/publication-type/reports.

options. The group’s report was released in November 2007. It many different ways that governments, universities, forest own-
concluded that the United States needs a system of crosscutting ers, and other stakeholders are using the MP C&I at multiple
environmental indicators as a strategic management tool (Na- scales for monitoring, assessing, and reporting on resource
tional Academy of Public Administration 2007). In response, conditions and trends.
the chairman of the CEQ, the director of the OSTP, and the
The examples also illustrate that the MP C&I serve as a useful
deputy director of the OMB issued a joint policy memorandum
framework for broadening and deepening the dialog among
on June 17, 2008, calling on the U.S. Departments of Agricul-
a growing network of forest stakeholders. The MP C&I are
ture, Commerce, Interior, and EPA to begin work on National
helping people better understand issues and better frame policy
Environmental Status and Trends (known as NEST) Indicators.
and management options, and they are providing an impetus for
A pilot project is under way focusing on developing indicators
taking actions. In short, the MP C&I are proving to be socially
and associated data for water availability. Although it is just a
relevant and valuable catalysts for dialog and decisionmaking.
beginning, the project holds the potential of instituting a stable,
long-term reporting process for environmental conditions at the Finally, we have seen that the MP C&I can help people connect
national level, a process that would have obvious linkages to what has happened to forests in the past with what their aspira-
the MP C&I and forest sustainability reporting. tions are for forests in the future, and they can link discussions
about forests with discussions about other natural resource
sectors and ecosystem concerns.
Summary
We have provided Web links in the text to many of the examples
This chapter highlights ways in which the MP C&I are being presented in this chapter. Additional online resources are listed
used at national and subnational scales. Although far from an following the literature references.
exhaustive listing, the activities described here demonstrate the
Web Addresses Given for Examples Highlighted in Chapter (in alphabetical order).
Resource Web Address
Baltimore County, MD/Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/agencies/environment/wor
kgroup/programimplementation.html
College of Menominee Nation/Sharing Indigenous Wisdom (including Yakama Nation project) http://www.sharingindigenouswisdom.org
Maryland Department of Natural Resources/Strategic Forest Lands Assessment http://www.dnr.state.me.us/forests/planning/sfla/index.htm
Mid-America Regional Council/Smart Growth strategy and related information http://www.marc.org/Enviroment/Smart_Growth.htm
National Association of State Foresters/Principles and Guides of a Well-Managed Forest plus http://www.stateforesters.org/pulication-type/reports
Stewardship Handbook
Northern Area Forest Sustainability Indicators Information System (Forest Service) http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainability/index.shtm
National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry/Considerations in the Selection http://ncseonline.org/NCSSF/
and Use of Indicators for Sustaining Forests (report done by The Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences)
Nebraska Forest Service/Great Plains Initiative http://www.fs.unl.edu/EAB.asp
Oregon Department of Forestry/Board of Forestry http://www.oregonforestry.gov
Pinchot Institute for Conservation/Stewardship and Landscape Coordination for Sustainable http://www.pinchot.org
Forests (book)
Project Learning Tree/Global Connections Curriculum http://plt.org
Roundtable on Sustainable Forests http://www.sustainableforests.net
Sustainable Forests Partnership/University project http://sfp.cas.psu.edu/CI.html
Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable http://sustainablerangelands.warnercnr.colostate.edu
Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable http://acwi.gov/swrr/
The Conservation Fund/Green Infrastructure case study about Baltimore County and related http://greeninfrastructure.net
information
The Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment/State of the Nation’s http://www.heinz.org
Ecosystems project
USDA Forest Service:
Mount Hood National Forest http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood/
Northeastern Area State & Private Forestry http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainability
State & Private Forestry/Forest Stewardship Program http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs

Chapter 4
Looking Ahead to the Future
These are not small tasks. To foster vibrant and diverse forested
Introduction ecosystems, we must restore some forests. To create more resil-
The preceding chapters and the indicator-specific briefs ient forests, we need to change some policies and management
included in Part II of this report describe and analyze the activities. To retain forested ecosystems as vital components of
current conditions and recent trends in the Nation’s forests. landscapes, we need to more fully recognize the contributions
The most general conclusion emerging from this information of tree cover in urban areas and in mixed use agricultural and
is that forest conditions—social, ecological or economic—are suburban areas. To perpetuate flows of ecosystem services
continuing to change in complex and interrelated ways. Direct or simply ensure that nature and wild places can persist in a
human pressure on forest ecosystems is increasing in many rapidly changing world, we need to change conservation and
areas, and this pressure is interacting with an evolving array management practices. Meeting all these requirements is a tall
of environmental processes, particularly those associated order, requiring ideas and sustained effort from many different
with forest disturbances. Economic and social pressures are groups and individuals outside and inside government.
also affecting forests, and climate change holds the potential
In this chapter, we suggest several approaches that could
to profoundly affect all these processes in ways that may be
mobilize and catalyze concrete actions toward improving the
anticipated in general terms, but whose specific effects remain
sustainability of America’s forests. We hope these approaches
difficult to predict.
inspire you to bring your own ideas to the public dialog over
In the face of all the pressures, inaction does not seem to be a the future of sustainable forests in America. Indeed, a diverse
promising avenue to a solution. Actions, in the form of wise set of ideas is essential to foster the sort of dialog envisioned
policy choices and on-the-ground activities, are needed to fully in this report. That dialog should focus not only on what the
realize the great potential of America’s forests. Better data— indicators show but also on what needs to be done. Dialog
reporting current conditions and trends—is a useful first step needs to build support for decisions and actions.
to action. But if this generation is to leave America’s forests in
better condition for future generations, we should identify and The Context for Dialog, Decisions,
implement specific ways to achieve desired social, economic,
and ecological goals. Actions are needed that—
and Actions
Several fundamental assumptions have been made that help
Foster vibrant and diverse forested ecosystems. to set the context for sustainable forest management in the
Create resilient forests that are better able to withstand United States of America. These often go unmentioned, but it
disturbances and climate change. is important to explicitly acknowledge them to help establish
and clarify the setting and the scope for dialog about the future
Retain forested ecosystems as vital components of the of the Nation’s forests. Although these assumptions may be
broader landscapes and regions. widely shared, some people may hold different views. Left
Perpetuate the flow of ecosystem services and products unspoken and unexplored, these differences in perspective may
from forests that provide jobs to people and support both the hinder dialog and decisionmaking about the actions and polices
economic vitality and social well being of local communi- need for sustainable forest management.
ties, States, regions, and the Nation.

Landscapes Are the Critical Spatial at State and local levels. The National Report on Sustainable
Forests—2003 helped influence Baltimore County officials
Scale for Evaluating Sustainability to prepare their county-level report and launch a county-level
The best spatial scale for assessing sustainability is often the dialog about sustainable forests, sustainable land use policies
landscape scale. Although knowing the status of U.S. forests for the county, and sustainable economic development.
from a national perspective is useful, for the purposes of
on-the-ground management, it is more important to know what
is happening at smaller scales because it is at the local and
Sustainable Forests Can Be Achieved
regional levels that we can best target our actions and evaluate Only Within the Context of a Broader
meaningful progress toward sustainability. The combined effect Sustainability
of the many individual decisions and actions taken across a Today’s forest issues did not arise solely within the forest
landscape is what determines the progress being made toward sector nor can they be solved within the forest sector alone.
sustainability, which is why the landscape level is the best Actions taken outside the forest sector often affect—directly
vantage point for tracking that progress. or indirectly—forests and thus should be a concern of private
Watersheds are especially useful landscape-scale units for forest landowners, public forest managers, and the people
tracking changes in forests and evaluating sustainability; all who love and use those forests. For example, the potential of
the effects of human activities and ecological processes and producing liquid transportation fuels from forest biomass is
perturbations become clear in watersheds. Trees are the key rooted in worthy goals, including reducing petroleum energy
to healthy watersheds. Restoring and maintaining healthy consumption, improving domestic energy security, and reduc-
watersheds and sustainable forest management are two sides of ing greenhouse gas emissions. Although considerable forest
the same coin—you cannot have one without the other. Even in biomass exists in some places, initiating large-scale biomass
watersheds where agricultural or developed areas predominate, energy production in those areas will change the conditions
how the trees and forests are managed in those watersheds will in those watersheds that will lead to tradeoffs between
often go a long way toward determining overall watershed development and resource management goals. A key question
health and condition, and ultimately, whether adequate supplies is, can we foster effective dialog among the communities of
of clean water and manageable flow rates exist. Clean water interest, including energy interests, economic development
and manageable flows are central to economic prosperity and interests, current forest products producers, and other forest
quality of life, and ultimately, to sustainable development. stakeholders, to discuss whether and how everyone’s objectives
and the changes likely to occur might be managed to serve
both sustainable energy development, sustainable economic
Actions at a Particular Spatial Scale development, and sustainable forest goals?
Influence Actions at Multiple Spatial
In the long run, it is impossible to have sustainable economic
Scales development without simultaneously having sustainable forests.
We should consider each policy or management action in Achieving sustainable forest goals will require additional focus
the context of the spatial scale where it will be applied. For on achieving sustainability goals in other sectors. If sustainable
example, the desirability of a countywide policy of “no net economic development and sustainable forests are so tightly
loss of tree cover” needs to be considered in the context of linked, then it is unproductive for the dialog about sustainable
that county’s environmental conservation plan, economic forests to occur only within the circle of those keenly interested
development plan, and the desired quality of life in that county. in forests. We must broaden participation in the dialog about
Policies and actions at the local level, however, often have sustainable forests to include those interested in sustainability
influence beyond that level. The forest sustainability reporting in other sectors. Conversely, members of the forestry community
by Baltimore County, MD described in chapter 3 is already af- should be engaged in dialogs addressing sustainability in other
fecting the dialog about forests and sustainable development in areas, such as agriculture, energy, or urban/suburban planning.
surrounding counties in both Pennsylvania and Maryland and
also at the State level in Maryland. Similarly, Maryland and Or-
egon’s actions to improve forest sustainability are influencing
Active and Adaptive Management
the dialog in other States and nationally. The effects of policies Is Essential To Achieve Sustainable
and actions fostering sustainable forests at one scale inevitably Forests
affect sustainability at multiple spatial scales—both upward It is impossible to achieve sustainable forests or sustainable
to broader spatial scales and downward to finer spatial scales. development without active decisionmaking and subsequent
Similarly, national reports like this one can influence actions on-the-ground activities to implement the decisions. Some may

argue that a policy of doing nothing—“benign neglect”—is the Experience has shown that investing in dialog during all four
only safe course to sustainability. Examples from past century steps of this cycle improves decisions and public support
show where forests affected by natural or human disturbances for actions. During the planning stage, dialog helps to shape
were left alone and recovered. Today, however, many forested decisions and build initial support. During the action stage, it
landscapes have been disturbed to the extent that the forests helps people understand what is happening in the forests and
need active restoration practices to bring them back to a healthy how management actions contribute to desired sustainable
and resilient condition. Simply allowing nature to take its outcomes. During the monitoring and adapting stages, dialog
course, particularly in fire-prone landscapes, can be both costly helps produce a more complete picture of conditions following
and dangerous. Choosing wisely how to use present landscapes the action and possible changes in future actions to improve
while simultaneously choosing and improving what to leave outcomes and address unforeseen consequences.
for future generations is the essence of sustainability. Wise
Recurring national assessments, such as this report, are key
choices will involve a range of management strategies, from
products from the monitoring step of the planning cycle. State
strict preservation to intensive development for commodity
forest resource assessments, mandated by the Food, Conserva-
production. Often the best options will be found somewhere in
tion, and Energy Act of 2008, evaluate current conditions at
between these two extremes. Active management is the context
a finer spatial scale and support Forest Service-State forestry
within which these choices are evaluated and made.
agency dialog about plans and adaptive management actions
Not only are forests and landscapes changing ecologically, needed to address problem areas identified. Both the national
human values and interactions with forests and landscapes are and State assessments rely extensively on the Forest Inventory
continually evolving. Therefore, land management policies and Analysis (FIA) program. FIA is a rigorous forest sampling
and practices should also evolve continually in response to and monitoring program that tracks conditions and trends in
new information and conditions. This need to evolve underlies forests and is scalable from sub-State landscapes and water-
the concept of adaptive management. Of course, the need to sheds up to the national level.28
adjust one’s actions in the face of new information has been
recognized for a long time. But adaptive management strate- The Pathway to Sustainable Forests
gies differ from past approaches because they explicitly call
for monitoring and evaluation of past decisions and actions
Will Emerge Most Clearly from Open,
and allow for changing decisions or actions moving forward. Transparent, Public Dialog
The “Plan-Act-Monitor-Adapt” planning cycle exemplifies The alliances formed during open, transparent public dialog
an adaptive management approach and is commonly used by provide essential support for the collaborative decisions
proponents of sustainable forest management (fig. I-2). needed to practice adaptive forest management and sustain-
able development. To the extent that the dialog is open to all
Figure I-2. Adaptive Management Model. interested parties and the substance of the discussions is freely
and widely shared, the dialog process itself becomes an integral
part of creating the social and political legitimacy necessary for
practicing active forest management.
Plan
During the past decade, the Roundtable on Sustainable Forests
(RSF) has engaged in the kind of open and transparent dialog
that is especially valuable for creating legitimacy, support, and
momentum for action. Incorporating the views of more than
Adapt Act 100 participants, the RSF dialog has motivated and legitimized
actions at the county, State, regional, and national scales. RSF
meetings have provided the social settings needed to explore
what sustainability means for each participant, and they have
fostered a fuller and more comprehensive understanding of
Monitor other perspectives. It is a testimonial to the value of the RSF
dialog that similar roundtables have formed in the rangeland
and water sectors after stakeholders in those sectors observed
28
See http://www.fia.fs/fed/us for information about the FIA program and its data products.

the benefits enjoyed by RSF participants. The emergence of services have been undervalued, considered free “public goods”
additional roundtables has helped to strengthen relationships provided to society by both privately owned and public forests.
within the broader community of interests for forests, range-
All forests “work” by providing ecosystem services, but a
lands, and watersheds in ways that have had positive results for
“working forest” is one that is actively managed using a forest
the entire natural resource community.
stewardship plan or similar framework as a guide. Working
Despite these successes, we can accomplish more with better forests present an opportunity to protect not only the value of
dialog in the future. RSF leaders believe that forging closer ecosystem services but also the economic and community ben-
working relationships among the roundtables would create addi- efits that arise from a forest’s production of marketable goods
tional benefits for all the sectors. Since the National Report on and services. When working forests are undervalued, however,
Sustainable Forests—2003 was completed, several important they are susceptible to development pressures and conversion
issues have emerged that jointly affect forests, rangelands, and to nonforest land uses. Recognizing the economic and social
water resources. The time is ripe to form partnerships and create value of ecosystem services provided by working forests can
opportunities for multisector dialog focused on common issues.29 help promote sustainability and more responsible decisionmak-
ing about whether and how to actively manage a forest. An
Open, transparent, public dialogs linking people from different
essential step in achieving sustainable forest management is to
professions, backgrounds, and sectors are already occurring
ensure that all forest values are sufficiently recognized and that
across the country, as highlighted in chapter 3. More than any
all forests are managed in a purposeful fashion, whether it be
specific piece of new legislation, management decision, or
for commodity production, the provision of wilderness values,
silvicultural technique, open and transparent dialog among di-
or the range of values existing between these two extremes.
verse participants offers great promise for building momentum
toward achieving the best combination of sustainable forests,
sustainable rangelands, and sustainable water resources for the Forest Fragmentation Affects Working Forests
citizens of the United States over the coming decade. We are chiefly concerned with two types of fragmentation. The
first is a reduction in the size of contiguous forest areas. As the
size of forest stands grows smaller and as the patches of forest
Confronting the Issues in a landscape become more separated, the integrity and pattern
of the landscape changes, which often results in a decreased
The indicator results in Part II and analyses in previous capacity of the remaining stands of trees to provide ecosystem
chapters highlight a number of issues. When thinking about the services. The second type of fragmentation is a social construct
threats that these issues pose to sustainable forests, three issues often called “parcelization.” As the number of private forest
rise to the top of the list: (1) loss of forest lands and working landowners in a landscape increases and the existing forest is
forests; (2) forests, climate change, and bioenergy develop- split into smaller and smaller parcels divided among more owners,
ment; and (3) changing forest health and disturbance patterns. the forest becomes more fragmented from a social standpoint.
These issues have the potential to change the Nation’s forests Smaller landowners typically have a different set of interests
dramatically in the coming years. than do owners of large tracts of forest land (Butler 2008).
The data in this report (Indicator 1.03) describes the current

Loss of Forest Lands and Working extent of forest fragmentation. Additional evidence also sug-
Forests Are Changing Landscapes gests that, as development progresses (Indicator 3.16), forests
and Reducing Ecosystem Services become increasingly fragmented in both a physical and a social
Healthy forests are ecological life-support systems for us. sense. As working forests become increasingly fragmented in a
They provide a suite of benefits that are vital to human health landscape, it becomes progressively more difficult to obtain all
and happiness. These include commodity outputs as well as the ecological, economic, and social benefits provided by more
a wider range of benefits, called ecosystem services, which intact working forests, and it also becomes harder to manage
include wildlife habitat and diversity, clean water, clean air, smaller and smaller stands. Addressing the challenges present-
carbon storage, and scenic landscapes. Historically, ecosystem ed by fragmentation will require a concerted effort to preserve
29
Sustainable bioenergy production is one example of a common issue. Increasing the production of liquid transportation fuels from biomass will require
sustainable supplies of biomass and sustainable supplies of water. Forest stakeholders are interested in how the increased woody biomass demands will affect
other wood fiber users. Water stakeholders are interested in how the increased water demands for biomass production and conversion will affect other water
users. On this issue, both roundtables have interests. Keeping the dialogs separate—or with only a handful of “go betweens”—is likely to be less productive
than joining together to discuss their mutual interests.

intact forest areas even in places where development continues landscape management and forest stewardship tool emerged—
to occur, and it will require collaborative mechanisms to help conservation easements—where landowners voluntarily give
coordinate the activities of diverse forest owners. up their rights to develop their property, usually in exchange
for a monetary payment from government or conservation
Loss of Working Forests Diminishes Ecosystem groups. In a growing number of landscapes, conservation ease-
Services ments help protect the remaining capacity of fragmented forests
to provide some ecosystem services to nearby communities.
Although from a national perspective the acreage of forest has
varied little in recent years, this obscures the losses and gains In the past several years, some stellar examples have emerged
that are occurring in specific regions and localities. Suburban of forward thinking to restore and expand working forests and
expansion into adjoining forests is a leading cause of losses in manage them on a sustainable basis. The work by Baltimore
working forests. County, MD, described in chapter 3, is the kind of local action
that could be emulated in many places throughout the country.
Suburban expansion into forested areas became an increasingly
Local officials, supported by local interests, created innovative
important issue in the last half of the 20th century. Up until
landscape-level stewardship plans and undertook actions to
the 1880s, most towns and cities were surrounded by a ring
conserve the forests that remained, to restore the forests that
of woodland where the trees were managed by frequent and
needed help, and to reintroduce forests where they had disap-
repeated cutting to provide fuel wood for nearby domestic
peared. The result is a reinvigorated landscape, where forests
(home heating and cooking) and industrial (steam generation
and the ecosystem services that they support are helping to
for factories and railroads) uses. A transformative technological
provide clean water, ameliorate storm water runoff, and boost
change occurred in the 1880s—coal replaced wood as the
the quality of life countywide. This model, where the value of
primary energy source for American society. The working
working forests is fully considered and actively managed for, is
forest that provided fuel wood for more than two centuries was
being applied, in various forms and to varying degrees, in other
idled, retired, and sometimes abandoned.
locations.
A period of benign neglect ensued, during which the forests
continued to grow. By the 1950s, many older towns and cities Lack of Markets for Ecosystem Services Also
in the eastern half of the country found themselves surrounded Plays a Role in Loss of Forests
by more forests than had existed at anytime since initial European
An important factor contributing to the conversion of forests
settlement (late 1600s to early 1800s), and they were enjoying
to other land uses is the fact that markets exist for only a few
many of the ecosystems services the regrown forests provided.
of the many ecosystem services forests provide. Timber is
The latter half of the 20th century, however, brought major
marketable, but few other ecosystem services, except perhaps
changes in land use that directly impinged on these forests. The
hunting leases in some areas, are capable of generating income
rapid expansion of the post-war years—population growth,
for landowners. Thus, despite the social value of the ecosystem
changing social preferences for single-family homes in the suburbs
services that working forests provide, when faced with few
and commuting to work via an increasingly dense network
income-generating opportunities and annual property tax bills
of highways—changed landscapes everywhere, including the
that continue to rise as suburban development creeps closer,
forests in those landscapes. Forests near urban areas declined.
converting forests to other uses often makes economic sense to
In some settings, overstory trees were left standing, but houses,
individual landowners even if it is counter to the way in which
lawns, and streets occupied the understory where once saplings
they want to manage their land.
and seedlings had grown, essentially destroying the next genera-
tion of working forest. Consequently, many of the ecosystem Therefore, creating viable markets for a broader array of eco-
services provided by forests in suburban areas were lost or system services can play an important role in keeping working
diminished despite the fact that a few overstory trees remained. forests working. Markets are emerging in certain locations to
a limited degree (Indicator 6.27). Payments of public funds to
Today, the magnitude of the loss in essential ecosystem
landowners for services related to protecting water quality, for
services that forests near urban areas once provided has become
example, have been instituted in upstate New York. Elsewhere,
evident. In recent years, some localities became so alarmed by
some States and localities are using tradable development
the loss of these services that forest and tree retention ordi-
permits, and conservation easements are becoming increasingly
nances were passed. These ordinances required developers to
common throughout the country. The scope of this activity,
protect existing trees. Some ordinances went further, requiring
however, remains quite small relative to the immense value that
that forests cleared for houses be replaced through forest
working forests provide or in comparison to the income that
restoration plantings elsewhere in the town or county. Another
real estate development can offer private landowners.

Slowing the Fragmentation and Loss of appropriate forest management activities. Therefore, the chal-
Working Forests Will Take Local and Regional lenge becomes one of protecting our forests from the negative
Actions, Facilitated by National Policy effects of climate change while helping them realize their full
potential to curb that change.
Because forest fragmentation and loss of working forests occur
primarily on private lands close to urban centers, they ultimate-
ly must be addressed at the local or regional level. Numerous
Climate Change, Forests, and Forest
examples of successful local and State policies exist, ranging Management Are Strongly Linked in
from land-use zoning to market mechanisms that reward Various and Complex Ways
landowners for forest stewardship. The best of these policies Climate change has been a target for scientific investigation
have some common features: they take an “all lands” approach for 20 years. Each of the past three administrations have had
that considers the role of forests in the entire landscape, they high-level science teams studying various aspects of the issue.
consider the full range of values that the forests provide, and Researchers around the world have also been studying climate
they engage stakeholders and communities in discussions. change. Despite all the research, questions remain about how
much and how rapidly climates will change, how soon the
Government agencies can play several important roles in facili-
changes will become apparent in ecosystems, and how specific
tating the process. One role is simply to provide information on
landscapes will be affected. Although many uncertainties
forest conditions and on what has worked in other settings—a
remain, we need to plan for the possible futures that climate
function this report is designed to partially fill. Another is
change may bring. Such planning needs to focus on concrete
to support dialog and collaboration through forums such as
actions and include increased dialog to build the necessary
the RSF. By providing an array of technical and financial
support for these actions. Many of the trees already growing in
assistance, specific local and regional management efforts
today’s forests will be the ones affected by whatever climate
can be supported. Also, through the tax structure and targeted
changes occur over the next 75 years.
incentive payments, the Government can promote sound land
management practices and the provision of ecosystem services Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels result in increased
while avoiding policies that unduly penalize forest owners and forest growth, assuming sufficient nutrients and water are avail-
lead them to sell or develop their land. able, resulting in more carbon being stored in woody biomass.
The more trees there are, the more carbon they can pull out
Emerging ecosystem service markets and innovative land
of the atmosphere, offsetting carbon emissions elsewhere and
management policies do not lead to a single grand strategy to
reducing the severity of climate change. A forest’s ability to
be implemented at the national level. Rather, they suggest a
help mitigate climate change effects through increased growth,
variety of approaches to be taken in different settings depend-
however, is only one facet of this complex issue. Evidence is
ing on particular landscape conditions and on the interests and
emerging that climate changes strongly influence temperature
hopes of local residents and community leaders. There is plenty
and precipitation patterns, and those changes cause forest
of room for innovative policy solutions at the town, county, and
disturbances, such as droughts, storms, insect and disease
State levels. Collaboration at these levels with the landscape
outbreaks, and fires. Although these disturbances are normal
clearly in view is central to moving along the pathway toward
occurrences in forested ecosystems, climate changes are alter-
sustainable forests and also to sustainable economies and
ing historic disturbance patterns, frequencies, and intensities.
sustainable communities.
Changing disturbance patterns, in turn, will affect the ability of
forests to store carbon.
Climate Change and Bioenergy
The ability of forests to mitigate carbon emissions does not
Development Present Both end at the edge of the forest. Durable forest products, such as
Challenges and Opportunities for construction lumber, continue to sequester carbon long after
Sustainable Forest Management the trees from which they are produced are harvested. They can
Climate change can potentially affect forests in a number of also serve as substitutes for more carbon-intensive products
ways. The challenge for forest managers, however, is not to such as steel or concrete. Moreover, energy produced from
simply adapt to changes that may affect the forest. Forests are woody biomass can reduce atmospheric carbon in the long run
major carbon sinks; their leaves pull carbon dioxide, one of by offsetting emissions from fossil fuels. Determining the de-
the principal gasses responsibly for climate change, out of the gree to which this actually is the case, however, is not a simple
atmosphere. This ability to clean the air and sequester carbon is task, because it entails changes in the long-term dynamics of
a beneficial ecosystem service that can be further enhanced by forest ecosystems following management actions as well as the
behavior of consumers acting in a market economy.

Forest Management for Climate Change Should that exceeded removals (Indicator 2.13). In many places,
Be Adaptive and Take Changes in Forest forests have become unnaturally dense and vulnerable to severe
Carbon Balances Into Account disturbances, including unnaturally severe wildfires, insect
infestations, and disease outbreaks. To combat this situation,
A fundamental challenge for forest management in regard to the Healthy Forest Initiative was launched in August 2002,
climate change is to maintain resilient and productive forests and in 2003, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act was enacted.
in the face of changing forest disturbance patterns and other Among other goals, the Initiative encouraged biomass energy
stressors while accounting for the change in carbon emissions production through grants and assistance to local communities,
resulting from management activity. Ideally, by carefully creating market incentives for removal of otherwise valueless
selecting adaptive management activities, landowners and forest biomass from Federal lands. The Food, Conservation,
land managers can help forests adapt to climate change; and Energy Act of 2008 also contained several provisions on
taking advantage of the desirable and reducing the undesirable producing biofuels from woody biomass.
effects, and maximizing the amount of carbon sequestered
in the landscape. At the same time, the goal of maximizing At the same time, some people are becoming increasingly
carbon sequestration must be balanced with various other concerned about the implications of these policies for carbon
objectives we hold for the landscape. Obviously, this will be a emissions and for other forest management objectives (e.g.,
complicated task, and it is unrealistic to think that all owners Manomet 2010). The debate surrounding the use of woody
can or should manage explicitly for carbon sequestration. But biomass for energy is beginning to reflect these concerns,
consider the success attained over the past 20 years by States complicating the policy environment surrounding wood-based
and counties in reducing nonpoint source water pollution from bioenergy.
construction, agriculture, and forest management activities.
Through development and consistent implementation of “best Increasing the Use of Woody Biomass for
management practices,” streams are cleaner. Many hope that Bioenergy and Biofuels Will Create Ripples
markets for ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestra- Through the Landscape, Economy, and Society
tion, will soon emerge and begin providing landowners with
Whether the result of increasing prices of fossil fuels, policies
additional economic returns. In any case, the complexity
to reduce carbon emissions, or improved technologies, the
and evolving nature of this challenge highlights the need for
demand for woody biomass and the energy it produces is
adaptive management strategies undertaken in collaboration
likely to increase in the near future. This increased demand for
among land managers, landowners, stakeholders, policymakers,
biomass will have consequences—positive and perhaps also
investors, and the science community.
negative—on sustainable forests and sustainable development.
The Potential for Energy Production From The potential benefits are numerous, ranging from more jobs
Woody Biomass Presents Opportunities in rural areas to increased resources for forest management
activities aimed at reducing fire risk and restoring forest health.
Using wood for energy is, of course, not a new idea. What is
These are in addition to the benefits all Americans receive from
new is the prospect of substantially increasing our use of wood
securing an alternative domestic energy source. The negative
as a substitute for fossil fuels—for electric power and steam
effects, on the other hand, can be divided into two general
generation and as feedstock for liquid transportation fuel. Some
categories. The first involves possible effects to existing
of the technologies needed for expanded woody biomass usage
industries and markets as firms face new competition for raw
are already commercialized, such as burning wood chips to
materials and the resulting price changes work their way down
generate steam and electricity. Others are still concepts or at
to consumers. These economic effects were evident in the
pilot-scale. But the possibilities present a number of opportuni-
corn market in 2007, when increasing corn ethanol production
ties to link forest management, wood products production, and
diverted large quantities of grain away from the food sector,
energy production in innovative ways.
contributing to price increases for grain in markets throughout
the world.
Recent Federal Initiatives and Legislation
Encourage Biomass Energy Production Similar consequences for the forest products sector are
possible. During the past 3 years, higher prices for and
Indicator 2.11 reported that the standing volume of wood
tightening supplies of fossil fuels have led many municipali-
on forest land available for timber harvesting is 51 percent
ties and public utilities to study the economic feasibility of
higher today than the volume available in 1953—a result of
converting existing power plants to burn woody biomass and
a relatively stable amount of forest land available for timber
of developing new biomass power plants. Those same studies
production (Indicator 2.10) and a historic pattern of growth

have documented the effects of increased competition for wood Addressing Changing Forest
chips that is likely to occur if new wood-burning energy plants
are constructed in areas where pulp and paper mills currently
Disturbance Patterns Will Require
purchase wood chips. Higher prices for woody biomass could Sustained Commitment and Flexibility
stimulate increased timber harvesting, which would mean The information in this document demonstrates that increasing
more jobs in rural America, and it would put more money into levels of forest disturbance are occurring throughout the coun-
the pockets of private landowners. At the same time, it would try (Indicators 3.15 and 3.16). Indeed, the growing incidence of
increase the wood costs and perhaps threaten the continued forest disturbances, especially insect induced tree mortality, is
viability of some forest products mills, resulting in higher one of the clearest and most disturbing signals emerging from
prices for consumers and fewer jobs in rural America. Jobs and this report. Moreover, to the extent that climate change drives
communities are affected both ways. shifts in the temperature and precipitation patterns, and through
them forest composition, much of the changes in forests will
As noted previously, however, there exists a large and expand-
occur through specific disturbance pathways, such as storms,
ing amount of wood available in many regions for various uses.
drought-induced fire, or changes in the range and virulence
So supply shortages of wood fiber for energy, papermaking, or
of forest pests. Add to this the increasing number of invasive
similar uses, will most likely be restricted to the regional and
species, new disease outbreaks, and other pathogens resulting
subregional levels. The best way to avoid localized shortages is
from increased commerce in a global economy, and it is hard to
through proactive planning in collaboration with all stakehold-
avoid concluding that elevated levels of forest disturbance are
ers to make sure anticipated future demand for wood fiber is
likely for the foreseeable future.
in line with sustainable regional supply. Moreover, energy
and traditional wood products are not necessarily competitors;
current use of mill residues for heat and electricity generation Flexible, Adaptive Responses That Work With,
shows that the production of these different products can be and Not Simply Against, Disturbance Pro-
complementary. cesses Are Needed
It is essential to realize that not all disturbances are bad;
The second type of possible negative effect relates to over-
in many cases, they are an integral part of a healthy forest
exploitation of forest resources at the local or regional levels,
landscape. In fact, some of the problems currently being
and the adverse environmental consequences that result. If
experienced in the West come from successful historical efforts
wood-based energy emerges as a major industry, then careful
to exclude a major disturbance category—fire—from forested
planning will be needed to align raw material demands with
landscapes that had evolved and adapted to its presence. Rather
the forest’s ability to supply wood while maintaining important
than attempting to simply exclude disturbances, what we need
ecosystem functions. Here again, possibilities for comple-
are new adaptive management approaches that use disturbances
mentary relationships between energy production and forest
while limiting their most deleterious consequences.
management goals exist, with new revenues available to help
offset the cost of much needed management activities to restore Wildfires provide an excellent example. Completely excluding
and enhance forest health. fires from all landscapes is neither possible nor desirable.
Conversely, allowing all wildfires to burn freely is not a viable
The bottom line is that there will be opportunities for more
option either. Lives, property, and essential ecosystem services
intensive engagement by the forest stakeholder community
are at stake. We need to strike a balance between these two
with the energy community to develop and evaluate options
extremes through management strategies that are both proactive
that are “win win” for energy, the forest industry sector, and
and responsive to rapidly changing conditions. One strategy
forest health, and resiliency. By working together, solutions
that has received growing attention is the creation of defensible
can be identified that both improve domestic energy security
space around forested communities through forest thinning
and sustainable forest management and also protect watersheds
and related fuel reduction activities. When combined with the
and restore healthy forests. Inside the Federal Government, the
installation of fireproof building materials, such as nonflammable
U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture are collaborating
roofs and siding, the result is a greatly reduced risk of major
on this issue. Now is the time to broaden and deepen the
property damage.30 This strategy enables forest managers more
involvement of the sustainable forestry community outside of
flexibility to use fire as a management tool, either through
government.
30
See http://www.nifc.gov/preved/protecthome.htm.

prescribed burns or by choosing the places and conditions the fact that total forest area in the United States has varied less
under which wildfires are allowed to burn, because major risks than 5 percent during that period of time, the kinds of forests
to life and property have been reduced or eliminated. and where they are located have sometimes changed dramatically.
Effective adaptive management strategies should be tailored Looking ahead to the near future, the three issues highlighted
to specific landscapes and the characteristics of disturbance in this section—forest fragmentation and the loss of working
agents. Adaptive management plans should be nimble and flex- forests, climate change and bioenergy, and forest disturbances—
ible to accommodate new information, including new research are this generation’s challenges. What lessons can be drawn from
findings, lessons learned from assessments of previous activities, recent history to help this generation both meet its current needs
changes in landscape conditions, and shifts in resident and while leaving resilient, healthy, productive, working forests;
stakeholder preferences. Especially where important human livable landscapes; and vibrant communities for future generations?
values or interests are involved, planning for adaptive manage-
ment should incorporate open and transparent collaborative Lesson #1: Left Unaddressed, These Three
processes. Admittedly, this is a tall order, but there exists a Issues Will Materially Change Forests—
large and ever-growing set of tools—in forest management, Both Here in the United States and Globally
in collaborative planning, and in communications and social
Experience since the 1950s with fragmentation and losses of
networking—that offer promise for meeting this challenge.
working forests, particularly to uncontrolled sprawl, shows the
undesirable consequences of landscape changes that can result
Elevated Levels of Forest Disturbance Are from inattention or ineffective engagement. Although the For-
Likely for Many Years, so Commitments To est Service has a longer history and more experience dealing
Address Them Also Should Be Sustained with the loss of working forests, we have little reason to expect
The insect outbreaks, fires, and other forest disturbances that the changes resulting from more plentiful disturbances,
patterns of today are not aberrations that can be quickly elimi- climate change, or the unbridled expansion of bioenergy/
nated. Most disturbances are the result of complex dynamic biofuels industries would not result in similar undesirable
processes whose results play out over the long term. In the face consequences. In confronting these issues, the question is, can
of climate change, development pressures, and globalization of integrated solutions be designed that create positive outcomes
trade, the amount of disturbance likely to be experienced in the from these agents of change that help keep forested ecosystems
Nation’s forest will probably increase in the coming decades. healthy, our working forests working, and rural communities
and economies vibrant?
A sustained commitment of attention to disturbances and their
contributing factors will be needed, along with a sustained It is also important to recognize that forests in the United States
commitment of resources, to achieve significant improvements represent only 7.6 percent of global forests. Nonetheless, these
in forest resiliency and sustain the many ecosystem services issues not only affect forests in this country but also forests
that healthy forests provide. Dedicated funding may be needed around the world. Therefore, although it is important to tackle
for programs aimed at managing certain types of disturbances these three issues within this country, it is also important for
at low levels, where possible, and to respond to the acute dis- all members of the U.S. forest community to work with other
turbance events that will inevitably occur. Continued attention countries and international organizations to address them at
and support for programs to reduce risks may also be needed. the global scale. A prime example is the Montréal Process
For example, research has shown that the risks of southern pine Working Group of 12 member countries, which provided the
beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) outbreaks can be substantially initial impetus for this report.
reduced through an active management program of thinning
The good news is that recent successes in several locations
overly dense stands. Such efforts, however, need to be deliber-
where these issues have been addressed offer hope for a more
ate and sustained; fluctuations in commitments—attention and
sustainable future. Notably, the use of a criteria-and-indicators
resources—may put gains at risk.
approach to forest monitoring and the use of monitoring results
to adapt plans and management activities have yielded benefits.
Lessons Learned Further, successful efforts at county and State levels provide
America’s forests played a key role in the economic development momentum for taking action to shape the future of America’s
of this Nation. During the past 125 years, the forests of the forests in more desirable, more sustainable ways.
United States have undergone several transformations. Despite

Lesson #2: These Three Issues Are Inter-Related; Lesson #4: The Forest Service Cannot
Therefore, Integrated Solutions Are Likely To Tackle These Issues Alone; Collective Action Is
Yield Better Outcomes Than Individual Solutions Needed and Collective Action Requires Shared
Restoring and maintaining healthy, productive, forested Leadership
ecosystems can help mitigate climate change. As markets or The Forest Service is directly responsible for only 25 percent
other incentive programs emerge for increasing carbon storage of the forests in the United States—the National Forest System.
in forests, they may provide financial incentives for private Other public agencies and private landowners are responsible
landowners and public land managers to plant more trees and for the other 75 percent. Because sustainability depends on
manage natural stands more actively, leading to more working what happens across the entire landscape, an “all lands” vision
forests and more ecosystem services in the future. is needed. Effective, landscape-level solutions to these issues
will require collective action by the entire community of people
As long as the value of ecosystem services remains outside of
who value forests and the ecosystem services they provide.
functioning markets, they run the risk of being undervalued and
Although the Forest Service and State forestry agencies have
underrepresented in decision and policymaking. We need to
already begun to address each of these issues, we will succeed
create markets and market values for the services that working
more quickly and at more places across the landscape if others
forests provide to society.
join us. The more we can broaden and deepen the dialog and
Increased use of woody biomass to generate bioenergy and the more open and transparent that dialog becomes and the
produce biofuels can help us achieve a successful domestic more people we get to participate, the greater the likelihood
energy policy and sustainable development goals and also miti- of success. Broader and deeper engagement should create
gate climate change effects. But the potential also exists that the broad-based public support that makes it easier to reach
rapid shifts to cellulosic ethanol or wood-powered electricity collective decisions and take effective, coordinated actions.
generation could result in a number of negative effects to both
The Forest Service understands that this requires a shared
the forest sector and the forest resources upon which it relies.
vision and shared leadership. The Forest Service’s history of
Management for increased production of wood-based energy
participation in the three roundtables (forests, rangelands, and
must be integrated with activities that address these effects
water) demonstrates its willingness and commitment to shared
in an overall framework that seeks to increase both economic
leadership at the national level. At the regional level, agency
vitality and forest health and resiliency.
leaders are taking steps with partners to practice landscape-
scale conservation through activities aimed at restoring forests,
Lesson #3: Providing Sound, Comprehensive protecting and enhancing water resources and watershed health,
Information Is Crucial, But It Is Only the First making landscapes more resilient to climate changes, creating
Step in Sustainable Forest Management green jobs and a green economy, and elevating community-
Since the initial national report on sustainable forests was based stewardship to protect forests.
published, dialog has improved and decisions were made that
moved forests down the pathway toward sustainability. This
report chronicles some of those steps and presents more and Hopes for the Future
better information on current conditions and recent trends. But
The year 2011 has been designated as “The International Year
having a second report is not nearly as important as using this
of Forests.” During this year, special attention and focus will
report to build more momentum for action. The steps taken by
be given to raising awareness and promoting actions aimed
the forestry community over the next 5 years will ultimately
at conserving and sustainably managing all types of forests.
determine the value of this report. The dialog stimulated and
The year-long global celebration of forests will highlight their
motivated by the data in this report and the forward-looking
importance to people and communities, and the threats forests
decisions that emerge from that dialog—those are the important
are facing. What better time than this to move from dialog
outcomes. In other Montréal Process countries, actions based
about the issues facing U.S. forests to the decisions and actions
on their second reports will be undertaken and outcomes
needed to conserve, manage, and use them wisely?
secured. What will the outcomes be in the United States?
The RSF is well positioned to begin the broader, deeper dialog
needed to tackle these issues. Dialog will need to occur on a
different stage than just within the roundtable itself, and the
dialog will need to be broader than merely collaborating with
the other two roundtables.

During the 7 years since the National Report on Sustainable study of forest conditions and productivity. The American For-
Forests—2003 was released, the forestry community has estry Association (AFA) was established in 1875 and the First
witnessed many actions that have made important contribu- American Forest Congress was held in 1882. Information from
tions to increasing the sustainability of our Nation’s forests. the initial study and dialog fostered by AFA and the Congress
Landscapes are different today in several areas because of the provided momentum for change—formation of the Division of
foresight of people who adopted the tools of forest sustain- Forestry in USDA in 1886, and creation of the Forest Reserves
ability and dedicated themselves to sustainable outcomes. Their in 1891. Those actions, which occurred 130 years ago, set in
actions are important demonstrations of the ability of people motion a series of changes in how forests—both public and
working together to create positive changes in forests and private—were conserved, used, and protected in the first half of
landscapes. These actions and their results strengthen hopes the 20th century. Today, we salute the visionaries who set those
about what might be achieved in the coming years. changes in motion.
Looking ahead, more actions are needed to deal with the issues Our actions in the coming 5 to 10 years—to adapt to climate
identified in this report. The actions must be brisk, in every change and the potential for wood-based energy production, to
sense of that word: lively and energetic; keen and sharply stem the loss of intact forest lands and the ecosystem services
focused; and hopeful and effervescent! The actions must not they provide, and to maintain forest health in the face of
only build momentum for change and for sustainable manage- growing disturbances—have the potential to shape for future
ment of forests within the forest community, but they must also generations the forests they will have to manage, conserve,
carry that momentum for sustainable management to stakehold- protect, and use. Will future foresters and citizens 130 years
ers outside the forest community. from now be able to look back at this point in time and say,
“Well done!” Will forest historians and policymakers in the
The late 1800s were a time of tremendous change in forests and
early 22nd century be able to point to actions taken now as
forestry in the United States. In 1872, concerns about timber
turning points in the sustainable management of the Nation’s
scarcity—unsustainable uses—led to the first inventory and
forests? We hope so. But it will take brisk action from all of us.

Part II.
Data Presentation
Part II.
Data Presentation
were involved in assembling the information in this report,

1. Introduction all experts in their respective fields. As a result, the indicator
While the first part of this report focuses on discussions of the briefs presented in this report should be seen as windows into
broader concept of forest sustainability and its application to broad areas of forest science and research. Moreover, because
U.S. forests, this, the second part, focuses on a more detailed of the comprehensive nature of the MP C&I and its explicit
presentation of the data that underlie these discussions. hierarchical structure, the information presented in this section
Specifically, Part II presents indicator briefs for each of the of the report constitutes a reference resource for forests in the
64 indicators included in the Montréal Process Criteria and United States that is unparalleled in terms of its breadth and
Indicators set (MP C&I)—the factual data that constitute the easy accessibility.
nuts and bolts of sustainability reporting.
Part II begins with a brief description of the MP C&I and its 1.1 Structure of the MP C&I
component parts, followed by a summary of findings for each of The foundations of the MP C&I, how it got started, and the
the MP C&I’s seven criteria. The remainder and bulk of Part II fundamental concepts that guide it are addressed in Chapter 1
is devoted to the indicator briefs, each of which is limited to of Part I. Here, we merely want to describe the structure of the
two pages. Many of these briefs contain a wealth of factual MP C&I as an aid to access the information in the criterion
information with further data and analysis that could not fit into summaries and indicator briefs that follow.
the format of this document. This information is included in the
supporting documentation we have posted on the project Web The MP C&I are comprised of 64 indicators arranged under
site (http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/). Other indicators seven criteria spanning ecological, social, and economic
enjoy less exhaustive treatment, either because relevant data are dimensions. Table II-1 displays the entire MP C&I in an
not available, or because the indicator itself is not amenable to abbreviated form with page numbers where the indicator briefs
concise reporting in this kind of setting. In these cases, we’ve can be found in this report. This important resource allows for
generally relied more on narrative description. easy access to the information included in the indicator briefs,
and readers should spend a little time familiarizing themselves
The main goal in presenting all of this data is to provide a bet- with the table.
ter foundation for assessing the sustainability of our Nation’s
forests. In many cases, the indicators and their current data are
1.2 Organization of the Indicator
directly pertinent to this task. In other cases, the information
is inconclusive or incomplete. Forest sustainability reporting, Information
however, will always be a work in progress, and it is important In the following section, each of the 64 Montréal Process 2010
to continue to struggle with those indicators where we currently indicators are arranged under their respective criteria. Each
do not have adequate data or analysis techniques. Just because criterion is introduced with a brief description and tabular
something cannot be readily measured does not mean that it is display of the criterion and its indicators, including their history
not important to our effort to manage forests sustainably. of revision since 2003. The criterion introduction is followed
by the two-page indicator briefs. For most indicators, the briefs
Although gauging sustainability is our primary goal, it is include a graphical display of the data, an explanation of what
important to remember that the information presented here can the indicator is and why it is important, a narrative description
be used for many other purposes. More than 30 Forest Service, of what the data show, and, in some cases, an explanation of
U.S. Department of Agriculture, scientists and collaborators current limitations in our ability to report on the indicator.
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 II–1

Supporting technical documents for the indicators are available Where possible, the presentations in this section will provide
at http://www.fs.fed.us/ research/sustain/. information on the five major geographic regions depicted below
(fig. II-1).
Figure II-1. Major reporting regions used in this report.
West East
Alaska
Rocky Mountain
North
Pacific
Coast
South
In most cases, the statistics presented in this report for the Pacific Coast Region include statistics for Hawaii. Additional statistics for Hawaii will be provided in a separate
report on the sustainability of U.S. tropical forests (in preparation). The report on U.S. tropical forests will also include statistics for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and
U.S. Island Territories in the Pacific.
Table II-1. Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators at a glance (1 of 2).

Ind. #1 Abbreviated Indicator Title2 MP # Page
Criterion 1. Conservation of Biological Diversity
Subcriterion. Ecosystem Diversity
1.01 Area and percent of forest by type. 1.1a II–16
1.02 Area and percent of forest in protected areas 1.1b II-18
1.03 Fragmentation of forests 1.1c II–20
Subcriterion. Species Diversity
1.04 Number of native forest-associated species 1.2a II–22
1.05 Number and status of native forest associated species at risk 1.2b II–23
1.06 Status of onsite and offsite efforts focused on conservation of species diversity 1.2c II–25
Subcriterion. Genetic Diversity
1.07 Number of forest associated species at risk of losing genetic variation 1.3a II–27
1.08 Population levels of selected representative forest-associated species to describe genetic diversity 1.3b II–29
1.09 Status of onsite and offsite efforts focused on conservation of genetic diversity 1.3c II–31
Criterion 2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems
2.10 Area and percent of forest land available for wood production 2.a II–34
2.11 Total growing stock and annual increment available for wood production 2.b II–35
2.12 Area, percent, and growing stock of plantations of native and exotic species 2.c II–37
2.13 Annual harvest of wood products 2.d II–39
2.14 Annual harvest of nonwood forest products 2.e II–41
Criterion 3. Maintenance of Ecosystem Health and Vitality
3.15 Area and percent of forest affected by biotic processes 3.a II–46
3.16 Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents 3.b II–48
Criterion 4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources
Subcriterion. Protective Function
4.17 Area of forest whose management focus is the protection of soil or water 4.1a II–52
Subcriterion. Soil
4.18 Management activities that meet best management practices to protect soils 4.2a II–53
4.19 Area and percent of forest land with significant soil degradation 4.2b II–54
Subcriterion. Water
4.20 Management activities that meet best management practices to protect water 4.3a II–55
4.21 Area of water bodies in forest areas with significant change in conditions 4.3b II–56
II–2 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

Table II-1. Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators at a Glance (2 of 2).
Ind. #1 Abbreviated Indicator Title2 MP # Page
Criterion 5. Maintenance of Forest Contribution to Global Carbon Cycles
5.22 Total forest ecosystem carbon pools and fluxes 5.a II–60
5.23 Total forest product carbon pools and fluxes 5.b II–62
5.24 Avoided fossil fuel carbon emissions by using forest biomass for energy 5.c II–64
Criterion 6. Socioeconomic Benefits To Meet the Needs of Societies
Subcriterion. Production and Consumption
6.25 Value and volume of wood and wood products production 6.1a II–69
6.26 Value of nonwood forest products produced or collected 6.1b II–71
6.27 Revenue from forest-based environmental services 6.1c II–73
6.28 Total and per capita consumption of wood and wood products 6.1d II–75
6.29 Total and per capita consumption of nonwood forest products 6.1e II–76
6.30 Value and volume of exports and imports of wood products 6.1f II–78
6.31 Value of exports and imports of nonwood products 6.1g II–80
6.32 Exports and imports of wood products as a share of production and consumption 6.1h II–82
6.33 Recovery or recycling of forest products 6.1i II–84
Subcriterion. Investment in the Forest Sector
6.34 Capital investment in forest management, forest-based industries 6.2a II–86
6.35 Annual expenditure in forest-related research, extension, and education 6.2b II–88
Subcriterion. Employment and Community Needs
6.36 Employment in forest products sector 6.3a II–89
6.37 Average wage and injury rates in major forest employment categories 6.3b II–91
6.38 The resilience of forest-dependent communities 6.3c II–93
6.39 Area and percent of forests used for subsistence purposes 6.3d II–95
6.40 Distribution of revenues derived from forest management 6.3e II–97
Subcriterion. Recreation and Tourism
6.41 Area and percent of forests available and managed for public recreation and tourism 6.4a II–99
6.42 Number of visits attributed to recreation and tourism and related to facilities available 6.4b II–101
Subcriterion. Cultural, Social and Spiritual Needs and Values
6.43 Area of forests managed primarily to protect cultural, social, and spiritual needs and values 6.5a II–103
6.44 The importance of forests to people 6.5b II–105
Criterion 7. Legal, Institutional and Policy Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management3
Subcriterion. Extent to Which the Legal Framework Supports Sustainable Forest Management
7.45 Clarifies forest property rights and land tenure 7.1a II–110
7.46 Provides for periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review 7.1b II–111
7.47 Provides opportunities for public participation in public policy and decisionmaking 7.1c II–113
7.48 Encourages best practice codes for forest management 7.1d II–114
7.49 Provides for the management of forests to conserve a range of values 7.1e II–115
Subcriterion. Extent to Which the Institutional Framework Supports Sustainable Management
7.50 Provides for public involvement activities and public education and extension programs 7.2a II–117
7.51 Implements periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review 7.2b II–118
7.52 Develops and maintains human resource skills across relevant disciplines 7.2c II–119
7.53 Maintains physical infrastructure to facilitate forest management 7.2d II–120
7.54 Enforces laws, regulations, and guidelines 7.2e II–121
Subcriterion. Extent to Which the Economic Framework Supports Sustainable Management
7.55 Regulation, investment, and taxation policies 7.3a II–122
7.56 Nondiscriminatory trade policies for forest products 7.3b II–124
Subcriterion. Capacity To Measure and Monitor Changes in Sustainable Management of Forests
7.57 Availability of data and other information for addressing Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators 7.4a II–125
7.58 Scope, frequency, and reliability of forest inventories and related information 7.4b II–126
7.59 Compatibility with other countries in reporting on indicators 7.4c II–129
Subcriterion. Research and Development Capacity Aimed at Improving Forest Management
7.60 Development of scientific understanding of forest ecosystems 7.5a II–130
7.61 Methods to integrate costs and benefits into markets, policies, and accounting 7.5b II–131
7.62 New technologies and the consequences associated with their introduction 7.5c II–132
7.63 Enhancement of ability to predict impacts of human intervention on forests 7.5d II–133
7.64 Ability to predict impacts on forests of possible climate change 7.5e II–134
1
The indicator reference numbers used in this report differ from those used by the Montréal Process at the international level. Although the MP numbers maintain
the C&I structure and hierarchy, they can be confusing and difficult to remember. For this reason, we have opted for a simpler scheme involving the criterion number
followed by an ascension number starting at 1 and ending at 64, the last indicator in the MP C&I.
2
Indicator titles are abbreviated in some cases. See indicator briefs for full title. Each criterion and indicator In the MP C&I are accompanied by an official statement of
rationale and suggested measurement approaches. These statements can be found in the Montréal Process Handbook, “Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation
and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests,” Fourth Edition, October 2009 (http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/2009p_4.pdf).
3
This version of Criterion 7 indicators was recently superseded by a newer, simplified version for use in the next round of forest Sustainability reporting. See Montréal
Process Handbook (see citation in note 2 above).

Data Adequacy have been largely offset by declines in forest area in the more
developed coastal regions, particularly in coniferous forests.
Indicator 7.58 provides an overview and tabular display of
the coverage, recency, frequency, and data sources for each Although the size of forest area may be relatively stable, the
indicator. As such, Indicator 7.58 spans all of the indicators in other indicators in the criterion paint a more troubling picture
the 2010 report and is important both as a general reference and about forest sustainability. Though the data on forest fragmen-
as a specific source of information to address the indicator in tation presented in this report are not directly comparable to
question. For this reason, we have allotted Indicator 7.58 four those in 2003, common knowledge and anecdotal evidence
pages instead of the customary two. strongly suggests that the area of forests impacted by frag-
mentation has been increasing at a steady rate. Impacted areas
include lands on the fringes of major population centers and in
2. Summary of Key Findings by rural areas where growth in smaller centers and in the number
Criteria of second homes continues to drive development and thereby
fragmentation. This conclusion is supported by the information
This section identifies key conditions and trends for each MP on the impacts of housing development on forest area included
Criteria and describes, in general terms, the data and analyses in Indicator 3.16.
that underlie them. By summarizing by criteria, we are
explicitly using the MP C&I as a framework to make sense of Species richness and genetic diversity of forest-associated
the various pieces of information contained in the indicators. species are closely linked to the availability and quality of
forest ecosystems. These ecosystems, in turn, are impacted by
As in the case with the overall summarization of key find- human and natural forces––such as development patterns, fire
ings presented in Part I, this summary of findings by criteria suppression, and climate change. As a result, species diversity
involves numerous judgment calls. Readers are encouraged and healthy populations of keystone species are viewed as
to develop their own opinions and judgments based on the crucial indicators of forest sustainability. The indicators
information contained in this report. Previous review comments covering species richness and genetic diversity do not yield a
provided alternative interpretations and assessments of the clear signal regarding changes in richness and diversity since
indicator data and helped us in drafting the final version of 2003. The inability to compare current data with past data is
this report. This is an example of the public dialog that is an due in large part to increased sampling intensity resulting in
essential part of the process of assessing the sustainability of higher species counts and the identification of more species
our Nation’s forests. at risk during the past decade (the more you look, the more
you find). In addition, changes in richness and diversity are
2.1 Criterion 1. Conservation of highly variable across geographic regions and general species
categories (vascular plants, mammals, birds, and so on), with
Biological Diversity declines in species counts in some areas or categories being
The MP divides this criterion into three subcriteria: ecosystem offset by gains in others. Ideally, we will be able to develop
diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity. The indica- more consistent ways of tracking these indicators over time, but
tors in the criterion are organized accordingly, addressing changing taxonomy and improved sampling will remain a chal-
first the extent, conservation status, and structure of different lenge. Currently, 28 percent of forest-related species have been
forest ecosystem types; then the number and status of forest- determined to be presumed or possibly extinct (1 percent), or
associated species along with related conservation efforts; and, at risk of extinction (27 percent––includes imperiled, critically
finally, a similar set of indicators describing genetic diversity imperiled, or vulnerable).
of forest-associated species. Several of the indicators in the
species and genetic diversity subcriteria address “species at In addition to the indicators in Criterion 1 that describe the extent
risk” in their titles, a category comparable to the concept of and condition of forests and their biological components, three
threatened or endangered species in the United States but more indicators in this criterion describe our society’s efforts to conserve
broadly defined (and lacking the same legal implications). these resources. Of these indicators, only Indicator 1.2, which
measures the area of protected forests, was reported in 2003.
Current data allow us to present a relatively complete picture of The area of forests that are formally protected by government
the overall extent of forest ecosystem types and their conservation designation totals some 106 million acres; this number has
status. The total area of forests in the United States currently changed little since 2003. At the same time, alternative ways
stands at 751 million acres. Overall, this number has been of protecting forests through land trusts and conservation
stable to slightly increasing in recent decades. Gains in broad- easements have been gaining popularity, accounting in total for
leaved forests in the Southern and interior Northern Regions

more than 10 million acres in 2005 (http://www.landtrustal- of the Northern Region forests are also timber land, but the
liance.org/). This acreage is small relative to the size of the total area of timber land there is 20 percent less than in the
officially designated protected areas, but it is an important South. Smaller amounts of timber land are located in the Rocky
addition to the U.S. portfolio of protected forest lands and has Mountain and Pacific Coast Regions, where, because of lower
been growing rapidly. Indicator 6.27, which tracks payments stocking and productivity (notably in the Rocky Mountain
for ecosystem services, including conservation easements, Region) and more area in higher protection categories (see
provides more information on this topic. Indicator 1.2), the proportion of timber land to forest land
is relatively less. Alaska also has considerable forest lands,
Indicators 1.6 and 1.9 describe U.S. efforts to conserve species
but only 7 percent is classified as timber land because of low
and genetic resources respectively. These indicators are new,
productivity and relative inaccessibility.
and, because they cover a broad spectrum of activities on the
part of the Government, academia, and the private sector, they Ten percent of U.S. timber land is classified as mixed forest.
are not easy to measure. The information presented for these The remainder is either predominantly conifer or broadleaf
indicators in Part II provides a picture of the breadth of current forest types, with the former constituting the overwhelming
activities in this area, ranging from experimental forests and majority of timber lands in the western half of the country and
wildlife conservation areas to zoos and seed banks. It does not, the latter found mostly in the eastern half. Of conifer forest
however, indicate whether these activities have increased, nor types in the East, 41 million acres (44 percent) of the 93 million
does it answer the crucial question of whether they are adequate acres are of planted origin, mainly in the South.
to help secure the sustainability of biological diversity in our
In contrast to the stable area of timber lands, timber growing
forests. Future editions of this report should be able to better
stock volume on these lands has steadily increased during the
answer these questions.
past 50 years, reaching a current level of 932 billion cubic
feet—51 percent higher than that reported in 1953. Most of
2.2 Criterion 2. Maintenance of this increase was in the Northern and Southern Regions. As a
Productive Capacity of Forest result of initially high-stocking volumes in mature stands and
Ecosystems continued harvest offsetting growth in younger stands, The
Pacific Coast Region saw only a 4-percent increase in growing
Criterion 2 addresses the ability of the Nation’s forests to continue
stock during the past five decades.
to provide raw materials for the wood products industry and
nonwood forest products for sale and personal use. This criterion Currently, 63 million acres of planted timber lands exist in
has five indicators. The first three indicators track traditional the United States, consisting mainly of pine plantations in
measures of timber production capacity, and the last two track the South. The small proportion of planted land relative to
measures of harvest of timber and nonwood forest products, total timber lands (only 12 percent) belies their importance as
respectively. The data presented in this criterion generally a timber resource. Planted lands play a large role in current
support the conclusion that our current use of the Nation’s and anticipated future supplies of timber because of their
forests is sustainable from the perspective of timber production high growth rates, easy operability, and overall intensity of
capacity; the area of timber land is stable and timber stocking management, and, as a result, the South is expected to continue
on these lands has been increasing. In the case of nonwood to serve as the major U.S. timber producing region well into
forest products, the data are not sufficient to reach a definitive the future. Since 1982, more than 2 million acres have been
conclusion about the sustainability of productive capacity. planted annually, virtually all with native species. A significant
percentage of the planted conifer seedlings also come from tree
Capacity for timber production. Timber land is defined as
improvement programs emphasizing superior growth grades,
the potential area of forest land available for, and capable of
form class, and disease resistance. It should be noted, however,
wood production. As is the case with forest land, the area of
that the rate of new plantings has declined significantly in the
timber land in the United States has been very stable during
South and elsewhere since its peak in the 1980s.
the past 50 years. It currently stands at 514 million acres (69
percent of all forest land). The highest concentration of timber The South supplied 62 percent of all timber removals in 2006,
land is in the Southern Region,31 where 95 percent of the forest up from 49 percent in 1953. On public lands in the West,
is classified as belonging to this category. A similar percentage where timber management has been sharply curtailed in recent
31
Where possible, we have used the major regions depicted in figure II-1 (page II-2), although data considerations have sometimes required different
regional definitions.

years, removals have declined from 4.4 billion cf in 1976 to (Indicator 3.16) addresses physical processes, such as fire
2.8 billion cf in 2006, a fall of 35 percent. Net growth in timber and storms, that likewise affect forests. The relatively small
stocks currently exceeds harvest by a considerable extent in all number of indicators, however, is no indication of the relative
regions of the United States. importance of this criterion. The processes described here
have a crucial effect on the health, character, and extent of
Although increasing timber stocks indicate that the United
forest ecosystems and are, thus, closely linked to all the other
States will not be running out of wood anytime soon, mounting
indicators contained in this report.
evidence suggests that the intensity of forest management for
timber production is declining. This decline is perhaps most In many cases, forest disturbances—both biological and physi-
clearly evident in falling rates of plantation plantings. The cal—can be seen as leading indicators foreshadowing changes
sale of timber lands by forest management companies to real in the distribution of forest ecosystem types across the land-
estate investment trusts and similar entities is cited as a major scape. Disturbances also affect the ability to provide an array
factor in this development, and these trends are exacerbated by of valuable goods and services, whether traditional commodity
low stumpage prices arising from a surfeit of available wood outputs like timber or livestock forage, ecosystem services
fiber and growing wood products imports. This situation has such as water purification and streamflow regulation, or more
certainly not been improved by the recent recession. Although intangible values such as aesthetic character or species habitat.
not immediately apparent in gross statistics on growth and The indicators in this criterion may register major changes
harvest, the potential effect of declining management intensity that are not yet apparent in the other indicators describing
on our ability to supply our needs for timber in the coming the biophysical characteristics of forests and their associated
decades bears watching. values and outputs. Moreover, to the extent that climate change
will affect our forests, these effects will likely first be clearly
Nontimber forest products. The indicators in this criterion
apparent within Criterion 3.
that track timber production capacity benefit from an extensive
and well established set of statistics, primarily from the Forest A certain level of disturbance is natural in healthy ecosystems.
Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. The real question is not the absolute level of disturbance, but
Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) do not enjoy the same whether it represents a significant departure from the background,
statistical foundation. or “natural,” level of disturbance for a given ecosystem. For
this reason, the MP C&I definitions for both Indicators 3.15 and
The data we do have indicate that NTFPs represent a major
3.16 stipulate “reference conditions” against which current lev-
source of economic activity and value from use for many
els of disturbance are to be measured. Of course, determining
people. In 2006, more than 14,000 permits and contracts were
valid reference conditions can be a difficult and controversial
issued for the collection and consumption of food and forage
undertaking. The strategy used in this report is to identify the
plants on national forests and Bureau of Land Management
average measures for the 1997-to-2002 time period as the refer-
(BLM) properties. Approximately 156,000 pounds of fruits and
ence and analyze current measures accordingly. This approach
berries, 468,000 pounds of mushrooms and other fungi, more
is not without its problems, since the 1997-to-2002 reference
than 7,000 tons of decorative foliage, and over 2,000 tons of
period may not represent a natural or sustainable level of
forage were harvested and/or consumed using these permits.
disturbance. Because of fire suppression activities throughout
Since 1998, the number of permits and contracts issued has
much of the past century, for example, fire incidence in many
increased by 65 percent Although data on the volume of NTFPs
of our forests is less than occurred before suppression, and, as
harvested on private land is lacking, a 2006 survey of private
a result of accumulated fuels, fire intensity is higher today in
forest landowners indicated that nearly 10 percent of the
many fires that do burn. So the reference conditions should be
estimated 10 million private forest landowners collected edible
taken merely as benchmarks for comparison and not as targets
plants, nuts, and berries either for sale or personal consumption.
representing an ideal situation.
During the past three decades, an estimated 2.7 million pounds
of ginseng have been harvested from eastern hardwood forests. The findings for the indicators in this criterion point to a
substantial increase in the levels of biotic disturbance and an
2.3 Criterion 3. Maintenance of increase in fire extent and intensity relative to the 1997-to-2002
reference period. In the lower 48 States, cumulative total for-
Ecosystem Health and Vitality ested area with notable mortality due to biotic agents has risen
Criterion 3 measures forest disturbance processes and contains to 37 million acres, compared to the reference condition of 12
only two indicators. The first (Indicator 3.15) addresses million acres. Bark beetle, engraver beetle, and gypsy moth are
biological processes, such as insect infestations and the influx the leading contributors to this increase, along with increasing
of invasive species, that can affect forest health, and the second mortality in the pinon-juniper forest type. When defoliation

is taken into account alongside mortality, the number of acres efforts, the number and extent of fires are likely to continue
affected since 2003 rises to 50 million, or 8 percent of forest to increase in the future. Increases in biotic disturbance and
area in the lower 48 States. mortality documented in Indicator 3.15 support this conclusion.
The growing incidence of nonpathogenic invasive plants and Weather. Weather-related damage has also increased
animals likewise threaten forest health, although here the significantly relative to the reference period, rising from
effects are not registered in terms of forest mortality so much approximately 800 thousand acres to nearly 1.8 million acres
as changing species distributions. Aside from radically altering during the past decade. Most of this is related to a roughly
forest character and displacing native species, these invasive 10-fold increase in the forest area affected by drought, and
species can predispose forest stands to other types of distur- this, in turn, may foreshadow increases in other disturbances,
bance such as insect infestation and fire. such as fire and disease, to which drought-stressed trees are
more susceptible. Storm damage is another aspect of weather
Drought and the increasing density of forest stands, because of
disturbance that is locally significant though not all that visible
tree growth and fire suppression have been cited as important
in national level statistics.
factors undermining forest health and thereby the ability of
trees to resist insects and disease. Another factor may be the Pollution. Little direct evidence exists linking airborne pollu-
increased senescence of shorter lived species, such as lodgepole tion to widespread forest mortality or decline at the regional
pine (Pinus contorta), which are now reaching older ages in the scale, but this does not necessarily mean pollution is not a
absence of traditional disturbance agents such as fire. In the problem; it is just hard to identify and may be more clearly
future, climate change may further complicate the picture, as seen in other indicators such as Indicator 4.19, which addresses
water availability, precipitation patterns, and the ranges of certain soil degradation.
insects and pathogens are expected to change. The causes and
Development. Human development impacts a growing area
possible effects to forest ecosystems are complex, and many
of forest land. In 2000, the past year for which consistent
of the processes themselves can be considered natural, even if
data were available for this report, our development footprint
they are in response to anthropogenic changes such as fire sup-
(meaning affected area) accounted for more than 13.3 percent
pression or climate change. Therefore, the implications of these
of total land area in the United States, up from 10.1 percent in
changes for sustainability are difficult to determine both in both
1980. This expansion significantly exceeds population growth,
a conceptual and a practical sense. What is clear, however, is
and it has no doubt continued since 2000.
that the findings for Indicator 3.15 point to a major increase
in biotic forest disturbance with the potential for broadscale Climate Change. Climate change will potentially affect forests
impacts, many of which society will likely find undesirable. in numerous and complex ways. Some of these are identified
in the analysis of Indicator 3.16. But as yet little data exists
For most forest ecosystems, fire is the most important abiotic
documenting these effects or providing direct evidence that
(nonbiological) disturbance category in Indicator 3.16. Other
climate change is the proximate cause.
disturbance factors considered in the indicator include weather
damage, damage from airborne pollutants, and impacts from
human development. Climate change is also identified as a 2.4 Criterion 4. Conservation and
potential abiotic disturbance factor, but there are numerous Maintenance of Soil and Water
specific pathways through which it can affect forests, including Resources
biotic disturbance agents alongside more direct paths such
as drought and fire. This fact brings up an important point: Soil is a major building block for healthy forest ecosystems.
disturbance factors are often linked through various biophysi- Water, in addition to being a limiting resource determining
cal processes, and evidence of one type of disturbance may forest type and vitality in many areas, often constitutes a
indicate the presence, or probable future occurrence, of other valuable forest output for downstream users. These two
types of disturbance. Catastrophic fire following insect induced substances, although perhaps not as visible as the trees, plants,
mortality is a common example of this. and animals considered in Criteria 1, 2, and 3, are nonetheless
crucial components in understanding forest ecosystems and
Fire. The findings for Indicator 3.16 point to an increase in fire their sustainability.
extent and intensity relative to the 1997-to-2003 time period.
Current fire levels are significantly less than those witnessed Soil and water are closely linked through the processes of
before the advent of broadscale fire suppression efforts in the erosion and sediment transfer. As a result, indicators of
first half of the last century, but the fires that do burn are likely watershed condition often treat the two simultaneously, and
more intense, and, without significant forest management forest management activities aimed at water quality and flow

regulation usually have a strong soil conservation component. Indicators 4.17, 4.18, and 4.20 focus on management practices
This linkage is clearly evident in our reporting for the indica- and land-use designations designed to protect soil and water
tors in this criterion. resources. Because a strong biophysical linkage exists between
soils and hydrological functions, conservation land-use
The five indicators in Criterion 4 measure the current condition
designations and best practices for forest management usually
of soil and water resources in our forested ecosystems on the
combine soil and water conservation objectives. For data, these
one hand, and our management actions designed to conserve
indicators rely largely on State level reports of management
these resources on the other. As such, they draw on qualita-
activity and land-use designations. The lack of consistency in
tively different data sources and analysis techniques. Indicators
these reports presents considerable challenges in addressing
4.19 and 4.21, which respectively measure soil degradation
the indicators. None of these three indicators were included in
and physical changes in forest streams, rivers, and lakes, rely
the 2003 report, and relevant comparisons could not be drawn
on direct observations of biophysical conditions or inferred
with past activities to determine significant trends. We hope
measurements modeled on these direct observations. Indica-
to improve on this situation in future reports, but the lack of
tors 4.17, 4.18, and 4.20, on the other hand, measure forest
consistency in the underlying data streams will continue to
areas subject to certain land use designations or management
present challenges. In any case, the importance of intact forest
practices. The first set of indicators provides a direct measure-
ecosystems in conserving soil and water resources is widely
ment of actual conditions––the second a measure of our efforts
recognized, as evidenced in forest practice regulations and
preserve and enhance these conditions.
watershed rehabilitation efforts across the United States.
A recent expansion of the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory
and Analysis program (FIA) to include certain types of soils 2.5 Criterion 5. Maintenance of Forest
information has allowed us to more fully report on forest soils
conditions for Indicator 4.19 in this report. We cannot yet
Contribution to Global Carbon Cycles
determine trends over time, but we can point to regional dif- Criterion 5 describes stocks and flows (pools and flux) of car-
ferences and areas of concern. In this regard, the Northern and bon in forested ecosystems (Indicator 5.22) and forest products
Southern Regions both contain substantial areas of degraded (Indicator 5.23) along with avoided carbon emissions from the
or otherwise suboptimal soils, to a degree that substantial use of forest biomass for energy (Indicator 5.24). As such, the
negative impacts to certain forest ecosystems may result. Acid criterion provides valuable information regarding the current
rain from airborne pollutants is cited as a factor underlying this and potential role of forest management efforts in offsetting
degradation. Whether these conditions mark a deterioration or or otherwise mitigating carbon emissions from fossil fuels
improvement relative to the past is not yet clear, but we will be and associated sources. It also provides an indication of how
able to determine this in the future with continued reporting for broadscale ecosystem processes may mitigate or exacerbate
this indicator. carbon balances, and thereby climate change, in the long term.
Indicator 4.21, which measures water conditions in forested Indicator 5.22 relies directly on FIA forest inventory data. The
ecosystems, does not benefit from the same systematic sampling process by which these data are translated into carbon stocks
that provides the soils information in Indicator 4.19. Instead, for various components (live biomass, forest soils, and so on)
we have used State-level water quality reports that are reported involves a number of assumptions and modeling techniques,
biennially to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which continue to be developed and refined over time. The
by the States. This information does not allow for a direct mea- inclusion of carbon stocks in forest soils, which were omitted in
surement of water conditions, but it does identify the sources the 2003 report, is a major innovation in the current report.
the water degradation as perceived by State reporting agencies. According to Indicator 5.22, forested ecosystems in the United
The indicator finds that municipal and industrial development States currently contain an amount of carbon equivalent to more
is the largest cause of water degradation in the United States. than 165 billion metric tons of CO2, a figure close to 27 times
Forestry activities, on the other hand, account for the least the 5.9 billion tons of CO2 emitted nationally every year through
amount of damage of all sources identified—about one-tenth of the burning of fossil fuels and similar sources. Live trees and
the impairment attributed to development activities. These reforest soils account for the bulk of forest-based carbon stocks.
sults, however, do not shed much light on conditions and trends In terms of flows, forests sequester approximately 650 million
in water quality in forest streams and lakes, the intended focus metric tons of additional CO2 every year, offsetting close to
of the indicator. Here, as in many other cases, we are limited by 11 percent of total U.S. annual carbon emissions. This rate of
the data on hand, and significant improvements in reporting can sequestration has been relatively stable for several decades,
be hoped for in the future if water quality monitoring in forest reflecting the long-term increases in forest volume described in
areas can be expanded and improved. Criterion 2.

Indicator 5.23 measures carbon stored in forest products, 2.6 Criterion 6. Maintenance and
underlining the important fact that many long-lived forest
products continue to sequester carbon long after the trees that
Enhancement of Long-Term Multiple
supplied their raw materials have been harvested. The indicator Socioeconomic Benefits To Meet the
shows that a carbon equivalent to around 8 billion metric Needs of Society
tons of CO2 are currently stored in long-lived forest products While Criteria 1 through 5 mostly describe biophysical condi-
and in discarded forest products in landfills. Annual rates of tions in our Nation’s forested ecosystems, Criterion 6 covers
sequestration are approximately 100 million tons, substantially a broad range of factors associated with social and economic
less than 650 million tons annually sequestered by forests but benefits that are closely linked to forested ecosystems, their
still a significant number. As in the case of Indicator 5.22, health and their management. The criterion includes 20 indica-
Indicator 5.23 measures broad processes, although in this tors divided into five subcriteria. These are:
case social rather than ecological. Major variations are not
likely in the short term, except in so much as they are driven 1. Production and consumption
by major changes in overall economic activity (such as the
2. Investment in the forest sector
recent recession). Over the long term, the indicator will provide
information on major shifts in consumption patterns and their 3. Employment and community needs
relative effects on carbon stocks and flows, and thereby the role
4. Recreation and tourism
of forest products in global carbon balances.
5. Cultural, social, and spiritual needs and values
Using forest biomass to produce energy is another means
by which forests may help mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) Each will be summarized in turn below.
concentrations in the atmosphere. Indicator 5.24 measures
Production and consumption. Indicators in this subcriterion
avoided carbon emissions resulting from the replacement of
track changes in the provision of traditional wood and paper
energy from fossil fuels with that generated by the use of forest
products, nonwood forest products, and, various ecosystem
biomass. Although this process releases the carbon stored in
services.
the biomass, it is assumed that the subsequent regrowth of
forests will sequester an equivalent amount over time and, Information on traditional wood products is largely available
thus, the process is considered to be carbon-neutral (at least in from the U.S. Department of Commerce, including the Census
the long run). This is a simplification of a complex argument, Bureau’s periodic Economic Census and annual Survey of
but it is nonetheless broadly accepted that replacing fossil fuel Manufacturers, which provide periodic or annual data some-
consumption with energy from forest biomass will result in times at the State level.
reduced carbon emissions in the long term.
Nontimber forest products, on the other hand, encompass a
The indicator shows that annual production of energy from broad array of forest herbs, mushrooms, and related products
the combustion of wood in the United States is around 2,100 that are not tracked in standard industrial reporting statis-
trillion BTUs (British Thermal Units) (about 2 percent of the tics—with the exception of some trade statistics—and are not
101 quadrillion BTUs consumed in 2007). When converted to always fully integrated into the cash economy. Reporting in
avoided carbon emissions, this number translates to between this category is significantly more challenging. Nevertheless,
100 and 200 million metric tons of carbon depending on the through the compilation of data not available to the 2003
energy source used for comparison. Contrary to what one report, we have substantially improved our reporting for
might expect, this number has been slightly falling since the products in this category.
mid-1990s, but the result is less surprising if one considers the
fact that the use of fire wood for heating purposes has been A new indicator (Indicator 6.27) tracks revenue derived from
declining for decades and that the wood products industry has ecosystem services such as water quality enhancement, carbon
long used wood residues and byproducts to generate energy as storage, or the provision of green-space. The work presented in
part of its production processes. Consequently, Indicator 5.24 relation to this indicator lays the foundation for future reporting
may be tracking developments in these more traditional uses by defining terms, identifying sources of quantifiable data, and
more than measuring the emergence of a nascent bioenergy explicitly recognizing activities that are not captured by these data.
sector. To the extent that forest-based bioenergy becomes The indicators covering timber and wood products (Indicators
more important in the future, this trend may be reversed in 6.25, 6.28, 6.30, 6.32, and 6.33) show that both timber harvest
subsequent reporting cycles. and wood products production are down slightly relative to
2003. At a little more than 20 billion cubic feet, consumption

has remained relatively stable, although levels dropped off Indicator 6.34 includes both private sector and public sec-
in 2006 when the housing construction market slowed. More tor investments in productive capacity (e.g., buildings and
severe effects reflecting the recent crises in the housing market machinery) and forest management activities. Private sector
can be expected, but it is unclear whether these changes will capital investments in the wood products industry are extremely
manifest themselves simply in a temporary downturn or in a volatile, following both broad market cycle fluctuations and
long-term shift in consumption and production patterns.32 The developments specific to the wood products sector. Investments
long-term impact of the recession will be something to watch in the wood products and pulp and paper sectors totaled $10.9
for in the next iteration of this report, anticipated in 2015. billion in 2006, up from $7.5 billion in 2003 but still substantial
lower than the $13.6 billion reported for 1997 (all figures are
The difference between production and consumption has been
in constant 2005 dollars). Indicator 6.34 also tracks substantial
filled increasingly by imports, which now total 5.4 billion
investments in silviculture, forest management, and recreation
cubic feet, or 26 percent of total consumption. The recovery of
management on the part of public agencies like the Forest
recycled paper products has also increased its contribution to
Service. These public investments are driven by the political
fiber supply in the United States. The total volume of recovered
process and have been much more stable than the private sector
fiber now equals about one-half of total domestic paper con-
investments listed above.
sumption. A growing proportion of recycled paper is exported,
however, so domestic use of recycled fiber in paper products Investments in research, extension services, and education
has remained stable at about 38 percent for the past decade. (Indicator 6.35) rely primarily on public sources for their
Most of the developments described here follow long-term funding. Forest Service research expenditures and academic
trends established in the last decades of the past century. research funding from Federal sources are the primary invest-
ment streams reported for this indicator. Overall, research
Production and trade figures for nontimber forest products
funding in these categories totaled $608 million in 2006, an
(Indicators 6.26, 6.29, and 6.31) present a more complicated
increase of 18 percent in inflation adjusted terms since 2000.
picture. Although the total value of production in this category
These expenditures, however, are only one piece of a larger pie
is down 30 percent relative to 1998, exports are up 38 percent
involving State, local and private investments in research and
since 2003. Much of this may be related to difficulties in
extension.
measurement and the dominant role of specific products (e.g.,
fuelwood in the case of production and pecans in the case of The number of baccalaureate and post-graduate degrees are
exports). In any case, the values reported for these indicators a measure of investment in human capital, and, in contrast to
in 2007 are substantial, with a total estimated retail value of research funding, these numbers have declined from 2,263
production of $1.4 billion and exports exceeding $450 million. to 1,810 degrees in the 2001-to-2006 time period, but this
may represent a shift to environmental studies and similar
Payments for environmental services are also substantial. The
programs rather than an absolute reduction in scholarship and
indicator identifies payments of $553 million for ecosystem
training related to forest resource management. The sustainable
services in 2007 from public and private entities, but it also
management of forests can benefit from both areas of training.
stresses the fact that these estimates are incomplete. While
The decline in forestry-specific degrees, however, may carry
Federal payments have been relatively stable, payments from
important implications for future management of forests for
private entities in the form of carbon offset purchases, conser-
timber production.
vation easements and outright land purchases for conservation
objectives are growing rapidly, increasing 38 percent in the Employment and community needs. The indicators in this
past 3 years alone and now accounting for more than one-third subcriterion track economic and social developments that
of total payments identified in this report. directly affect individuals and communities that depend on for-
ests for their livelihood and important aspects of their quality
Investments in forestry and the forest sector. This subcri-
of life. They include economic measures such as employment
terion contains two indicators that call for measures of invest-
and income in the forest sector, which are generally available
ments in forest-related economic sectors, and in research and
from standard statistical reporting sources, but they also include
education, respectively. These indicators point to investments
more complex indicators involving concepts of community
whose effects will play out over many years, and, consequently,
resiliency, wealth distribution, and the amount of resources
they constitute two of the most forward-looking indicators in
available to support subsistence activities.
the entire Montréal Process indicator set.
32
The recession that begun in 2008 is addressed more fully in Chapter 2 of Part I.

Employment in the forest sector, measured in Indicator 6.36, The remaining two indicators in this subcriteria address the
includes a broad range of activities. Major categories covered area of forests devoted to subsistence use and the distribution
in this report include public agencies engaged in forest manage- of forest-derived revenues (Indicators 6.39 and 6.40, respec-
ment activities at the Federal and State levels (data for counties tively). Subsistence use of the forest typically includes hunting,
and municipalities, although certainly important, was not fishing, and gathering for personal consumption, but for many
available for this report), employees in the solid wood products users, particularly in the Native American community, it also
and paper products sectors, and workers in the forest-based denotes a lifestyle involving a deep connection to nature and
recreation sector. Forest products industry employment, which cultural traditions. This is in addition to tangible economic
currently stands at 1.3 million employees, decreased by about benefits in terms of foregone purchases of food and similar
15 percent since 1997, with much of the drop concentrated in items. As with several of the other MP indicators that call for
the pulp and paper sector. This decline reflects stable to slightly measures of forest land devoted to specific activities, providing
declining production levels (see Indicator 6.25) in combination quantified measures for the subsistence indicator is complicated
with increasing labor productivity requiring fewer workers to by the fact that much of the Nation’s public access forest lands
produce the same quantity of goods. Once again, the recent are designated for multiple use, including, but not restricted to,
recession has no doubt exacerbated these declines. Public subsistence activities.
sector forest management employment is about one-tenth of
Indicator 6.40, the distribution of forest-derived revenue, is
that in the forest products sector and has been relatively stable
a new indicator. In this report, we identify the major revenue
with the notable exception of the Forest Service, which has
sources as coming from wood products industry activity and
declined to around 23,000 employees from a recent peak of
from the sale of “stumpage,” or standing timber. Major recipi-
31,000 in 1991. The 2003 report estimated that forest-based
ents of forest-derived revenue include industry (via profits),
recreation directly generated 1.1 million jobs, and it is assumed
labor (wages), government (taxes), and landowners (stumpage
that this number has grown along with recreation participation
receipts). Payments to labor and nonindustrial landowners
in the intervening years.
comprise most of revenues and come from the wood products
Private sector wages in these major employment categories industries and stumpage sales respectively.
(Indicator 6.37) have generally been increasing, but at a
Recreation and tourism. Recreation and tourism is a major
relatively slow rate, especially in the lumber and wood products
and increasing use for the Nation’s forests. It provides direct
sector, where wages are currently well below the United
benefits to citizens, contributes to a diverse and growing
States average for all manufacturing. Public sector wages have
industry, and fosters appreciation for the importance of
fared better in recent years. Injury rates in the wood products
conservation and sound stewardship. The two indicators in this
industry have continued a long-term decline with the exception
subcriterion track the availability of forest land for recreation
of the furniture industry, which has experienced an uptick in
activities (Indicator 6.41) and the number and type of these
the past few years—a development that bears watching.
activities (Indicator 6.42).
Indicator 6.38 addresses the resilience of forest-dependent
Almost all U.S. public forest lands are available for a broad
communities and is the only indicator that directly assesses
range of recreational activities, with some restrictions on uses
community conditions and well-being. This complex indicator
that adversely impact the environment or the experiences of
requires considerable effort both in conceptual development and
other users. Currently, 44 percent of forest land is in public
in practical application. In 2003, we used county level census
ownership, much of it in Federal custody in the Western States.
and employment data to develop indexes for vitality and adapt-
The remainder is in private hands, where family and individual
ability. Although this was a logical and cost-effective approach,
ownerships predominate. Indicator 6.41 estimates that only
it was widely deemed inadequate for capturing the many dimensions
about 15 percent of family forests are available to the public
that characterize the well-being of forest-dependent communities.
for recreation, and this number has been falling for at least the
Also, counties proved to be a poor surrogate for communities.
past two decades. Although the area of public forest lands have
For the revised indicator (the concept of resiliency has been
increased to a very slight degree since 2003, the falling percent-
substituted for vitality and adaptability in the indicator title),
age of private lands that are accessible for recreation use points
the 2010 report has taken a different tack, relying on survey and
to an overall decline in forest land available to recreation. This
community assessment techniques to characterize the resiliency
is increasingly important in the Eastern United States, where
of individual communities. The work presented in this report is
private forest lands predominate and large population centers
a pilot effort, and, although survey and analysis protocols have
mean higher demands for outdoor recreation activity.
been developed, only five sample community assessments were
available for inclusion in this report.

At the same time that available lands for recreation are this writing. Results highlight the diversity of feelings people
decreasing, recreation use has been rapidly increasing. As have for forests, and the fact that these are largely determined
shown in Indicator 6.44, the number of recreational activity by cultural background.
days has increased by 25 percent since 2000 and currently
stands at 83 billion days. The number of people participating in 2.7 Criterion 7. Legal, Institutional,
these activities has increased at a slower pace—4.4 percent. An
estimated 217 million people have participated in forest-based
and Economic Framework for Forest
recreation activities in 2007 (both of these measures have Conservation and Sustainable
specific definitions that need to be considered when comparing Management
them with other measures—see the data report for details). Criterion 7 contains 20 indicators and addresses the crucial
Walking for pleasure and nature viewing are the most popular question of whether current legal, institutional, and economic
activities, and most of these occur on public lands. structures are adequate to sustainably manage the Nation’s
Chapter 1 of Part I noted a growing alienation of urban popula- forests. Most of the indicators in the criterion, however, are
tions, particularly the young, from forests and forest-based not amenable to concise quantified measurement. Character-
activities as one of the underlying forces driving forest policy izing national trade policies in terms of their affect on forest
and sustainability. The recreation numbers presented here do sustainability, for example, entails an analysis framework and
not provide explicit evidence of this shift, but major changes synthesis of information more appropriate to a full research
related to population demographics and cultural values take a paper than to a limited set of numerical indicators presented in
long time to occur. Many of the indicators in Criterion 6, and a two page brief. Consequently, much of the indicator develop-
the recreation indicators in particular, will provide an initial ment for Criterion 7 in the 2003 report relied on separate
indication of the effects these potential changes will have on narrative assessments that identify key concepts and policy
forest management and use. components, but had little in the way of quantifiable informa-
tion and were difficult to update in a consistent fashion.
Cultural, social, and spiritual needs and values. While the
other subcriteria and respective indicators in Criterion 6 mostly For the 2010 report, we have used a more systematic approach,
measure specific outputs, values, and activities associated with applying a common framework for analysis across all of the
forest ecosystems, the two indicators in this subcriteria seek indicators in the criterion. This framework characterizes the
to address the more intangible values and attachments people various policy elements covered by the indicators in terms
have to forests. of their scale (e.g., national or local); their mechanisms (e.g.,
command-and-control or market-based); and their approach
Indicator 6.43 calls for the measurement of land area protected (e.g., process-based or outcomes-based). This framework has
specifically for cultural, social, and spiritual values. In this lead to a more integrated approach entailing more front-end
report, however, it simply measures the total amount of forest theoretical development than the other indicators, as described
land in protected status of all types in the United States. The in the introduction to Criterion 7 indicator briefs.
logical connection between protected status and cultural, social,
and spiritual values lies in the fact that many people view The application of this approach to Criterion 7 indicates that a
natural landscapes as a source of spiritual renewal and their wide variety of legal, institutional, and economic approaches
conservation as a transcendental goal. The indicator shows only exist that encourage sustainable forest management in the
a slight increase in protected public lands since 2003, but it United States, at all levels of government. Public laws govern
also notes the rapid increase in protected private lands through public lands, which comprise about one-third of the Nation’s
mechanisms such as conservation easements and outright forests. They dictate management and public involvement in
purchase (see Indicator 1.02 for additional information). various specific ways. Federal and State laws also provide
for technical and financial support, research, education, and
Indicator 6.44, a new indicator, seeks to measure the impor- planning assistance on private forest lands. Federal and State
tance of forests to people. It involves considerable challenges environmental laws protect wildlife and endangered species in
both in conceptual development and in actual measurement. forests on all public and private lands, and foster various levels
The pilot approach explored in this report relies on survey tech- of forest practices regulation or best management practices to
niques to assess the various dimensions of people’s relationship protect water quality, air quality, or other public goods depend-
to forests and the importance they attach to them. Because of ing on the State. Private markets allocate forest resources on
the difficulty in obtaining a truly representative sample, the most private forest lands, and market contracts for goods and
team tasked with addressing Indicator 6.44 opted for a focus services, or cost minimization at least, are integral parts of
group approach, and has conducted some 30 focus groups as of forest management on public lands. Many new market based

mechanisms, including forest certification, wetland banks, difficulties experienced in addressing them in the 2003 report.
payments for environmental services, conservation easements, The outcome of this process will determine the extent to which
and environmental incentives are also being developed to the work on Criterion 7 presented in this document becomes
implement sustainable forest management in the United States. a foundation for future reporting. In any case, the analysis
presented here should provide a useful way of characterizing
Ideally, the new approach taken in addressing Criterion 7 will
and understanding a broad and complex topic area.
help us develop a better understanding over time of the ways in
which policy and institutional capacity affects forest sustain- Of the many indicators in the criterion, Indicator 7.58 stands
ability. It should be noted, however, that the MP C&I revised out as a special case. It provides a summarization of data
the Criterion 7 indicators in November 2008, due in part to the adequacy for all of the indicators addressed in the report.

Criterion 1
Conservation of Biological Diversity
What is this criterion and why is it important? What has changed since 2003?
Forests support a substantial proportion of biological diversity, The data––The most significant change since 2003 is the
particularly natural forests. Biological diversity enables an freshness of the data. In 1999, the Forest Inventory and
ecosystem to respond to external influences, to recover after Analysis (FIA) program shifted from periodic surveys of each
disturbance, and to maintain essential ecological processes. State on a roughly 10-year cycle to an annualized survey. The
Human activities can adversely affect biological diversity by current exceptions are Wyoming (last survey 2001), New
altering and fragmenting habitats, introducing invasive species, Mexico (last survey 2000), Nevada (last survey 1989), Hawaii
or reducing the population or ranges of species. Conserving the (last survey 1986) and interior Alaska (no complete previous
diversity of organisms supports the ability of forest ecosystems survey), which are scheduled to begin annualized inventories
to function, reproduce, and provide broader economic, intrinsic, pending sufficient program funding. In the long term, this new
altruistic, ethical, and environmental values. approach will allow rolling average summaries of the status of
forest inventory, health, and harvesting data every year. The
The first three indicators in Criterion 1 cover ecosystem diver-
land-cover data analyzed to quantify forest fragmentation is
sity. They describe the kind, amount, and arrangement of forest
new in this report. The databases that were analyzed to quantify
and habitats, which when taken together provide a measure
the number, population size, and conservation status of forest-
of the capacity of forest habitats to provide for organisms and
associated species have been greatly expanded.
essential ecological processes. The last six indicators describe
the abundance and biodiversity of plants and animals found in The indicators––The following table summarizes the revisions.
these habitats in terms of their species and genetic diversity. Indicator reference numbers for 2003 and 2010 are provided to
These six indicators are, in turn, strongly influenced by the assist in comparisons with the previous report. A more detailed
conditions measured in the first three indicators of habitat rationale for the revisions may be found at http://www.rinya.
capacity. maff.go.jp/mpci/meetings/18_e.html.

Criterion 1. Conservation of Biological Diversity.
2003 2010
2003 Indicator Revision Action 2010 Indicator
Reference Reference
Ecosystem Diversity
1 Extent of area by forest type relative to total Merge 2003 Indicators 1 and 2 1.01 Area and percent of forest by forest
forest area ecosystem type, successional stage, age
class, and forest ownership or tenure
2 Extent of area by forest type and by age Merge 2003 Indicators 1 and 2
class or successional stage
3 Extent of area by forest type in protected Merge 2003 Indicators 3 and 4 1.02 Area and percent of forest in protected areas
area categories as defined by IUCN by forest ecosystem type, and by age class
(International Union for Conservation of or successional stage
Nature) or other classification systems
4 Extent of areas by forest type in protected Merge 2003 Indicators 3 and 4
areas defined by age class or successional
stage
5 Fragmentation of forest types Change “forest types” to “forests” 1.03 Fragmentation of forests
Species Diversity
6 The number of forest-dependent species Change “forest-dependent” to “native forest 1.04 Number of native forest-associated species
associated”
7 The status (threatened, rare, vulnerable, Change “forest-dependent” to “native 1.05 Number and status of native forest-
endangered or extinct) of forest-dependent forest associated” and delete “at risk of not associated species at risk, as determined by
species at risk of not maintaining viable maintaining viable breeding populations” legislation or scientific assessment
breeding populations, as determined by
legislation or scientific assessment
NEW 1.06 Status of onsite and offsite efforts focused on
conservation of species diversity
Genetic Diversity
8 Number of forest-dependent species that Change “forest-dependent” to “native forest 1.07 Number and geographic distribution of forest-
occupy a small portion of their former range associated” and reword associated species at risk of losing genetic
variation and locally adapted genotypes
9 Population levels of representative species Add “ forest associated” and reword 1.08 Population levels of selected representative
from diverse habitats monitored across their forest-associated species to describe genetic
range diversity
NEW 1.09 Status of onsite and offsite efforts focused on
conservation of genetic diversity
Indicator 1.01. Area and Percent of Forest by occurred in the East (divided into North and South regions
in the accompanying charts) between 1850 and 1900, when
Forest Ecosystem Type, Successional Stage, broadleaf forests were cleared for agriculture (fig. 1-1). For the
Age Class, and Forest Ownership or Tenure past 100 years, the total forest area has been relatively stable,
although the U.S. population has nearly tripled.
What is the indicator and why is it important?
Today, regional forest cover ranges from a low of 19 percent
This indicator uses age-class distribution by broad forest type of the land area in the Rocky Mountain Region (fig. 1-2) to
as a coarse measure of the landscape-scale structure of the 45 percent in the Pacific Coast Region, 41 percent in the North,
Nation’s forests. Within forest types, this serves as a surrogate 40 percent in the South, and 34 percent in Alaska.
for stand development or successional stage. A diverse distribu-
tion of forest lands across forest types and age classes is an Broadleaf forests. Broadleaf forests cover 290 million acres
indicator of tree-size diversity and is important for determining nationwide (fig. 1-3), predominantly in the North and South
timber growth and yield, the occurrence of specific wildlife (239 million acres). With 139 million acres in the United States,
and plant communities, the presence of other nontimber forest oak-hickory is the largest single forest cover type. It constitutes
products, and the forest’s aesthetic and recreational values. more than 19 percent of all forest land in the United States and
nearly one-half of all broadleaf forests. Covering 54 million
What does the indicator show? acres, maple-beech-birch forests, are also dominant in the
Eastern United States. Combined, these two upland forest
Forest area in the United States stands at 751 million acres, or
types constitute nearly two-thirds of all broadleaf forests and
about one-third of the Nation’s land area. Forest area was about
have increased 25 and 39 percent, respectively, since 1977.
one billion acres at the time of European settlement in 1630.
Broadleaf types have a fairly normal age distribution, showing
Of the total forest land loss of nearly 300 million acres, most

400
a bulge in the 40- to 79-year age-class, as second- and third- Mixed 350forests. Virtually all of U.S. mixed forests are found
South
growth forests in the East continue to mature (fig. 1-4). in the300

South, where oak-pine
North (30 million acres) and oak-gum-
Acres (millions)
cypress
250 (20 million acres) are the major forest types. Although
Conifer forests. Conifer forests cover 409 million acres in
oak-gum-cypress
200 is found in the wet lowlands, oak-pine is
the United States and are found predominantly in the West Rocky Mountain
usually
150 found on
Alaska the drier uplands of the South. The largest age
(314 million acres) and South (69 million acres). Pines are
class100
for these forestsPacific
is 40Coast
to 59 years old.
the single-most dominant group of conifer forests. Loblolly- 50
shortleaf pine and longleaf-slash pine types in the South and Although 0 trend data on forest age-class are sparse, historic data
ponderosa and lodgepole pine types in the West combine to are available for average tree size in forest stands (fig. 1-5).
30
70
10
50
90
30
70
10
50
00
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
cover 121 million acres, or more than one-fourth of all conifer Stands with trees averaging 0 toYears 5 inches in diameter increase
forest types. as older stands are harvested and regenerated. The recent trend
in this800diameter class is slightly downward. Although intermediate
The largest single conifer type, with 58 million acres in interior
stands
400in the 6 to 10 inch diameter range have been declining,
Alaska, is the spruce-birch type. Douglas-fir follows closely, 600averaging more South
stands than 11 inches in diameter have been
(millions)
350
with 39 million acres found predominantly in the Pacific Coast
400 rising.
300This later trend is indicative of shifts in management
North
(millions)
Region. Conifer forestsSouth
are somewhat bimodal in age structure 400
that 250
have decreased harvesting on public forests in the West,
with350
more acreage in younger age-classes because of more
AcresAcres
300 North thus,200increasing the acreage of larger diameter stands in that
200
intensive management for wood production in the South and a
Acres (millions)
Rocky Mountain
250 region,
150 particularly
Alaska in coniferous forests types.
preponderance of older stands in the West where most of the 1000
200 Pacific2007
1630 2007 1630 Coast1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007
United States remaining old-growth forests occur and where
Rocky Mountain Ownership
50 patterns
North
have a profound
South
effect Pacific
Rocky
on forest manage-
Alaska
150 Alaska
recent policy changes have reduced harvesting of mature stands. ment policies
0 and activities. Although
Mountain81 percent
Coast of forests of
100
Pacific Coast Region and year
30
70
10
50
90
30
70
10
50
00
50 16
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
Natural forest Planted forest Nonforest
Figure
0 1-1. Historic forest area in the United States by Figure 1-2. Area of natural Years
forest, planted forest, and
geographic region, 1630–2007. nonforest land by geographic region, 1630 and 2007.
30
70
10
50
90
30
70
10
50
00
16
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
400 Years 800 1977 2007

160
South
350 140
600
(millions)
300
800 North
120
(millions)
(millions)
250 100
400
600
(millions)
200 80
Acres
Rocky Mountain 200

60
Acres
AcresAcres
150 Alaska
400
100 40
Pacific Coast 0
20
50
200 1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007
0 North South Rocky Pacific Alaska
0
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Mountain Coast
0
30
70
10
50
90
30
70
10
50
00
Region and year

16
16
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007
North South Years
Rocky Pacific Alaska Natural forest Planted forest Nonforest
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory
Mountainand Analysis
Coast North South Rocky Pacific Alaska
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory
Mountainand Analysis
Coast
Region and year
800 Region and cover group
1977 2007
Figure
600 1-3. Area of forest land in the United States by Figure
160 1-4. Forest area by stand-age class for conifer,
Acres (millions)
major cover group, 1977 and 2007. broadleaf,

140 and mixed forests, 2007 (excludes Alaska).
1977 2007 120
Acres (millions)
400
160 80
100
140
200 80
120 60
Acres (millions)
60
Acres (millions)
100
0 40
80 1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007 1630 2007 40
20
Mountain Coast 0
40
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Region and year 20

20
0
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
Mixed

Mountain Coast
19
39
59
79
99
r
de
14
19
to
to
to
to
to
ol
Region and cover group

to
to
1977 2007
d
0
20
40
60
80
an
0
160
10
15
North South Rocky Pacific Alaska

0
Stand-age class (years)

20
140 Mountain Coast

120 Region and cover group Conifer Broadleaf Mixed
Acres (millions)
Source: Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis

100USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis 80
80
60
60 1953 1977 2007
National
40 Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
80 II–17
millions)
300
20 250
40
)
120
140
(millions
100
120
(millions)
80
100
60
Acres
80
40
60
Acres
20
40
0
20
the North and South are in private ownership, only 30 percent Indicator 1.02. Area and Percent of Forest in
Conifer
Braodleaf
MixedMixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
MixedMixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
MixedMixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
MixedMixed
Conifer
Braodleaf
MixedMixed
0
of forests in the West are in private ownership (fig. 1-6).
Conifer
Braodleaf
Conifer
Braodleaf
Conifer
Braodleaf
Conifer
Braodleaf
Conifer
Braodleaf
Overall, 56 North
percent ofSouth
U.S. forests are in private ownership.
Protected Areas by Forest Ecosystem Type,
Rocky Pacific Alaska
Thus, public land policies have Mountain
a more significant
Coast affect on and by Age Class or Successional Stage
North South Rocky Pacific
Region and cover group Alaska
western forests and their use. Mountain Coast
Region and cover group What is the indicator and why is it important?
What has changed since 2003? The area and percent of forest ecosystems reserved in some
80
Forest land area has remained essentially stable since 2003. The form of protected status provides an indication of the emphasis
80
data indicates an increase of 8 million acres (about 1 percent), our society places on preserving representative ecosystems as a
60
but much of this increase came as result of changes in the classi- strategy to conserve biodiversity. Important forest management
(millions)
60
fication of land cover types as either forest or nonforest. From questions also can be addressed by maintaining information
(millions)
40
a regional standpoint, a general loss of forest has occurred in on a network of representative forest types within protected
Acres
40
the coastal regions of the East and West with offsetting gains areas. Traditionally, protected areas have been set aside, in
20
Acres
in forest area in the interior region. Much of the loss can be at- part, for their conservation, scenic, and recreational values.
20
tributed The ecosystems in any one area might not represent the full
0 to urban sprawl, and much of the gain can be attributed
to forest encroachment following decades of fire suppression. range of biodiversity, but if it is part of a national conservation
19 19
39 39
59
79
99 99
20 20 99 99
r
de lde
14 14
0
1
to
to
to
to
to
strategy (including rare and endangered species), then some

o
o
to to
Generally the forest gained is of lower productivity than the

d
0 00 t
0
20
40
60
80
59
79
r
an an
0
15 15
degree of overall protection is available. Over time, forest

1
1
0
to
to
to
to
to
ol
forest lost. Stand-age class (years)

to
d
0
20
40
60
80
0
10
Conifer Broadleaf Mixed types and their associated flora and fauna within protected
0
Figure 1-5. TrendsConifer Broadleaf

in timber land area by Mixed
average areas will change and must be monitored as part of an overall
stand-diameter class, 1953–2007. strategy for conserving biodiversity. Adequate protection of
1953 1977 2007 the ecosystems and species in protected areas may also provide
300
1953 1977 2007
more management flexibility in forests under management for
300
250 wood production and other uses.
(millions)
250
200
(millions)
200
150 What does the indicator show?
Acres
150
100 The United States has a long history of forest protection.
Acres
100
50 Yellowstone, one of the world’s first national parks, had
50
0 its land area set aside in 1872. In the late 1800s, the Forest
Nonstocked 0–4.9 5–9.9 10+
0
Reserves (now the national forests) were established to protect
Average stand-diameter class (inches)
Nonstocked 0–4.9 5–9.9
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
10+ water and provide timber. The passage of the Wilderness Act
Average stand-diameter class (inches)
in 1964 (Public Law 88-577, 16 U.S. C. 1131–1136) provided
further protection to millions of acres of forest throughout the
Figure 1-6. Forest land ownership in the United States
by geographic
250 region, 2007. Private Public United States. Protected forest areas are scattered throughout
Private Public the United States but are most abundant in the West, predomi-
250
200 nantly on Federal public land. In the East, the Adirondack
(millions)
200
150 and Catskills Reserves managed by the State of New York, at
(millions)
nearly 3 million acres total area, and set aside nearly 100 years
150
100 ago as wild forever, are two of the largest areas of protected
Acres
100 forest in non-Federal ownership.

Acres
50
50
0 This indicator currently addresses public protected forest areas,
Rocky North Pacific South Alaska
0 Mountain Coast
but millions of acres of private protected forests exist as well.
North South Rocky
Region Pacific Alaska These forests are primarily in various forms of conservation
Mountain Coast
Region easements and fee simple holdings of several nongovernmental
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis organizations (NGOs), such as The Nature Conservancy, Ducks
Unlimited, The Conservation Fund, and The Trust for Public
Land. The National Land Trust Census in 2005 conservatively
estimated 37 million acres of private land in protected status.
The overall data from the various sources, however, are
inconsistent both spatially and as to how much of the areas are

forested. Major efforts are under way to improve the quality than 100 years old and other protected areas have 49 percent
and coverage of this data and future reports will be able to of stands more than 100 years old, although all other forests
address these areas in a more consistent way. outside protected areas have only 14 percent of stands more
than 100 years old. The more active management for wood
Public protected areas in the United States are found within
products on the latter skews the forest area to younger age
six IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)
classes. Many of the younger stands in protected areas are the
categories (wilderness, national parks, National Monuments,
result of fires that have occurred in western forests at higher
wildlife management areas, protected landscapes, and managed
levels of frequency in recent years.
resource areas—see Glossary for more detailed descriptions),
and are estimated to cover about 154 million acres (7 percent If protected areas are not large enough to support the full range
of all land) in the United States. An estimated 106 million acres of habitat attributes need to sustain all ecosystem components,
of these protected lands are forested, representing 14 percent areas outside protected status are needed to contribute to bio-
of all forest land (fig. 2-1). Conifer forests, particularly on diversity goals. The ability to manage both public and private
public lands in the West (Rocky Mountain, Pacific Coast, and unprotected forest lands for these broader goals will depend on
Alaska Regions), have a larger percentage of area in protected the management objectives of the owners and their willingness
status in the United States (fig. 2-2a). The highest proportions to consider management options that can be integrated with
of protection in conifer types are lodgepole pine at 49 percent, those for protected areas.
followed by western white pine at 38 percent and fir-spruce at
34 percent of total forest area in each type. What has changed since 2003?
A smaller proportion of broadleaf forests are in protected The area of public protected forests has changed little since
status because many of these forests are in the Eastern United 2003. As described in Indicator 27 and earlier in this indicator,
States, where private ownership is predominant. (fig. 2-2b). conservation easements and related mechanisms by which
The highest proportions of protection in the East are spruce-fir private lands are assured some level of protection are growing
at 6 percent, maple-beech-birch at 6 percent and white-red-jack in importance. Currently, the total area protected in this fashion
pine at 5 percent. is smaller relative to the area of publicly protected lands, but it
is growing rapidly with the support of both public and private
Protected forests are relatively older than those on unprotected funding sources and will play a significant role in future forest
lands (fig. 2-3). Roadless areas have 52 percent of stands more policies both locally and nationally.
Figure 2-1. Forest land by major forest land class in the United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii), 2007.
500 miles
Albers Equal-Area Conic Projection
Protected forest Timber land Other forest

Figure 2-2a. Percent of public forest land protected by Indicator 1.03. Fragmentation of Forests
cover type in the West, 2007.
Pinyon-juniper What is the indicator and why is it important?
Western hardwoods
Other softwoods
This indicator provides information on the extent to which for-
Pinyon-juniper
Redwood
Western hardwoods
ests are fragmented by human activities and natural processes.
Fragmentation may lead to the isolation and loss of species
Cover type
Other softwoods
Lodgepole pine
Pinyon-juniper
Redwood
Larch
and gene pools, degraded habitat quality, and a reduction in
Western hardwoods
the forest’s ability to sustain the natural processes necessary
Cover type
Lodgepole
Hemlock-Sitka
Other pine
spruce
softwoods
Larch
Fir-spruce
Redwood
to maintain ecosystem health. The fragmentation of forest area
Hemlock-Sitka
Western spruce
white
into smaller pieces changes ecological processes and alters
Cover type
Lodgepole pine
Fir-spruce
Ponderosa pine
Larch
biological diversity. This indicator includes several measures
WesternDouglas-fir
white
Hemlock-Sitka pine
spruce
of the extent to which forests are fragmented at several spatial
Ponderosa pine 0
Fir-spruce 10 20 30 40 50 60 scales of analysis.
Percent of type protected
WesternDouglas-fir
white pine
Ponderosa pine 0
Protected
10forest outside
20 roadless
30 40 Roadless
50 forest
Source: Conservation Biology Institute and USDAofForest
Percent type Service,
protectedForest
Douglas-fir
Inventory and Analysis
Protected forest outside roadless Roadless forest
Analysis of fragmentation is scale dependent. Consequently,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 maps or summaries of fragmentation differ depending on
Figure 2-2b. Percent
Other forest types of public forest land protected by whether the forest map is separated into small or large pieces
cover type in the East,
Aspen-birch 2007. (landscapes) for analysis.
Maple-beech-birch
Other forest types
Elm-ash-cottonwood
Maps of forest land derived from satellite imagery at 0.22-acre
Aspen-birch
resolution (circa 2001) show that although forest is usually the
Cover type
Maple-beech-birch
Oak-gum-cypress
Other forest types
Elm-ash-cottonwood
dominant land cover in places where forest occurs, fragmenta-
Oak-hickory
Aspen-birch
tion is extensive. Simply stated, places that are forested tend
Cover type
Oak pine
Oak-gum-cypress
Maple-beech-birch
Loglolly-shortleaf pine
Oak-hickory
to be clustered in proximity to other places that are forested,
Elm-ash-cottonwood
Longleaf-slash
Oak pine but blocks of forest land are usually fragmented by inclusions
Cover type
Oak-gum-cypress
Loglolly-shortleaf pine
Spruce-fir of nonforest land. This pattern is repeated across a wide range
Oak-hickory
Longleaf-slash
White-red-jack pine
Oak pine of spatial scales. For landscapes up to 160 acres, at least 76
pine 0
Spruce-fir
Loglolly-shortleaf 1 2 3 4 5 6 percent of all forest land is in landscapes that are at least 60
White-red-jack pine
Longleaf-slash pine percent forested. For larger landscapes up to 118,000 acres in
Spruce-fir 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 size, at least 57 percent of forest land is in forest-dominated
White-red-jack pine landscapes (figs. 3-1 and 3-2).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Source: Conservation Biology Institute and USDA Forest Service, Forest
35 and Analysis
Inventory Percent of type protected Core forest is forest on landscapes that are completely forested.
in age class
30 Protected forest outside roadless Roadless forest The larger the landscape being examined is, the less likely that
it will be core forest. For 10-acre landscapes, 46 percent of
Figure
25 2-3. Protected and other forest land by stand-age
35
areaclass
class,30
202007 (does not reflect private protected forests). all forest land is classified as core forest. Less than 1 percent
of forest land is classified as core forest in landscapes that are
of age
15
25
35
areaclass
1,500 acres or larger.

in
10
20
30
of area Percent
ofage
5
15
25
Interior forest is forest on landscapes that are more than 90
0
10
in
20
percent forested. As with core forest, larger landscapes are
Percent Percent
19
39
59
79
99
r
de
14
19
5
15
to
to
to
to
to
less likely to have interior forest. When examining landscapes

ol
to
to
d
0
20
40
60
80
an
0
0
10
10
15
that are 10 acres in size, 60 percent of all forest land is interior

0
290
19
39
59
79
99

de
14
19
5
to
to
to
to
to
ol
forest. For landscapes larger than 250 acres, however, less than
to
to
Protected forest area outside roadless

d
0
20
40
60
80
an
0
0
10
15
Roadless forest area All other forest one-third of forest land is classified as interior forest. Forest
0
920

19
39
59
79
99
r
de
14
19
area in landscapes dominated by forest (more than 60 percent

to
to
to
to
to
ol
to
to
Protected forest area outside roadless

d
0
20
40
60
80
an
0
0
10
15
Roadless forest area All other forest forest) is greater than either core or interior forest, and domi-
0
20

Protected forest area outside roadless nant forest area also decreases with increasing landscape size.
Roadless forest area All other forest
Source: Conservation Biology Institute and USDA Forest Service, Forest Edge habitats have a different microclimate and often support
Inventory and Analysis
a different species mixture than forest, which is distant from an

Figure 3-1. Forest land fragmentation (circa 2001) from edge between forest and nonforest land. Overall, 54 percent of
national land-cover maps (National Land Cover Data- forest land is within 185 yards of forest land edge, 74 percent is
base). The chart shows the percentage of forest land within 330 yards of forest land edge, and less than 1 percent is
in the coterminous United States that is considered at least 1,900 yards (1.1 miles) from forest land edge.
core (completely forested landscape), interior (greater
than 90 percent forested), or dominant (greater than 60
percent forested), and how those proportions decrease
What has changed since 2003?
with increasing landscape size. The West includes the Due to changes in land-cover mapping protocols, the statistics
Pacific and Rocky Mountain regions; the East includes shown here are not directly comparable to those shown in the
the North and South regions. Red symbols identify the 2003 report.
conditions mapped in figure 3-2.
100 Are there important regional differences?
Percent of forest area in category
Dominant forest
80 Western forests (Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain Regions)
West
Interior forest are less fragmented than eastern forests (North and South
60 East
Regions). This difference is most pronounced for landscapes
Core
40
forest smaller than 250 acres in size (fig. 3-1).
20
Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at
0 this time?
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Regional baseline conditions and the specific ecological
Landscape size (acres)
Source: 2007 NLCD compilation of 2001 data
implications of observed levels of fragmentation are mostly
unknown. The available data permit an analysis of overall for-
est land fragmentation but do not incorporate the influence of
small roads nor differences in land ownership (parcelization).
Figure 3-2. The percent of all forest in a county that is interior forest (greater than 90 percent forested) when ana-
lyzed at an approximately 40-acre scale (corresponding to the red symbols in figure 3-1). Larger values indicate that
a larger share of the existing county forest is relatively intact, in comparison to forest in other counties. In this quantile
map, equal numbers of counties are shaded with each color.
0 to 7.7
7.7 to 27.0
27.0 to 39.2
39.2 to 54.1
54.1 to 87.3

Indicator 1.04. Number of Native Forest- ecoregions of the United States. The number of forest-associated
species is highest in the Southeast and in the arid ecoregions
Associated Species of the Southwest (fig. 4-1a). Long-term (1975 to 2006) trends
in number of forest bird species within these ecoregions have
What is this indicator and why is it important? been mixed (fig. 4-1b). Ecoregions where the number of forest
This indicator provides information on the health of forest bird species has had the greatest estimated increase include the
ecosystems through the number of native forest-associated spe- desert systems of the intermountain West; the southern semi-
cies. Because one of the more general signs of ecosystem stress arid prairie and plains; and scattered forest systems within the
is a reduction in the variety of organisms inhabiting a given Great Lakes Region. The greatest estimated decline in forest bird
locale, species counts are often used in assessing ecosystem numbers were observed in the semiarid prairies of the central
well-being. The count of forest-associated species in a region Great Plains; the southern coast plain of peninsular Florida; and
will change when species become extinct, species colonize, or the plateau and mixed woodlands of the upper Midwest.
our knowledge base is improved. Although change in species
counts because of improved knowledge of distribution or What has changed since 2003?
taxonomy is unrelated to biodiversity conservation, extinction,
Since the 2003 report, a broader accounting of species that
and colonization––it can alter ecological processes in ways that
inhabit forests resulted in the addition of 11,690 species. Much
affect the kinds and quality of ecosystem services that humans
of this increase is because of new habitat affinity data for vas-
derive from forest ecosystems. Therefore, the loss or addition
cular plants that extended the data beyond the 689 tree species
of species in an ecosystem can provide valuable insights into
covered in the 2003 report. These increases do not necessarily
the overall health and productivity of that system.
reflect national gains in forest species. Our knowledge of which
bird species are associated with forest habitats has not changed
What does the indicator show? since the 2003 report and we had sufficient data to quantify
Data on the distribution of 12,865 vascular plants and 1,000 trends in the numbers of forest-associated bird species. Many
vertebrate species associated with forest habitats (including 230 regions throughout the coterminous United States have shown
mammals, 388 birds, 184 amphibians, and 198 reptiles) reveal continued increases in the number of forest bird species or
notable differences in the number of species that occur in major have changed to an increasing trend (42 ecoregions comprising
Figure 4-1. (a) The number of vascular plants and vertebrate species associated with forest habitats (2009, data
provided by NatureServe). (b) The estimated change in the number of forest-associated bird species from 1975 to
2006 (data provided by U.S. Geological Survey). Change is measured by the ratio of the 2006 species count estimate
to the 1975 species count estimate. Values greater than 1 indicate increasing species counts (green shades); values
less than 1 indicate declining species counts (purple shades).
(a) (b)
Number of species Change in forest bird species

0–821 (1975–2006)
>821–2,500 0.48–0.80 (declining)
>2,500–3,085 0.80–0.85
>3,085–3,458 0.85–0.97
>3,458–4,824 0.97–1.03 (stable)
1.03–1.13
1.13–1.36
1.36–3.80
No data

46 percent of the area) since the 2003 report (fig. 4-2a). Of Indicator 1.05. Number and Status of
particular note are the Appalachian Mountains; the Mississippi
alluvial plains; the northern temperate prairies; the cold deserts
Native Forest-Associated Species at Risk,
of the central intermountain West; and the Cascade Mountains as Determined by Legislation or Scientific
of the Pacific Northwest. Those regions, where the number of Assessment
forest bird species have continued to decline or have changed to
a decreasing trend (34 ecoregions comprising 47 percent of the What is this indicator and why is it important?
area) since the 2003 report (fig. 4-2b), are prominent through-
This indicator provides information on the number and status
out the semiarid prairies of the Great Plains; the plateau region
of forest-associated species at risk or in serious decline. It
west of the Appalachian Mountains; coastal areas in New
accomplishes this by monitoring the number of native species
England, Texas, and the Pacific Northwest; and the regions that
that have been identified by conservation science or mandate
comprise the intensive agricultural lands in the upper Midwest.
to be at risk of global extinction. As the number of species
considered to be rare increases, the likelihood of species extinc-
Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at tion also increases. Demographic and environmental events
this time? such as failure to find a mate, disease, disturbance, habitat
Monitoring the count of different species over large geographic loss, and climate change interact to increase extinction risk as
areas is difficult. For this reason, we lack systematic inventories populations become smaller. Because important ecosystem
that permit the estimation of species numbers for many groups functions (e.g., productivity, nutrient cycling, or resilience)
(e.g., nonvascular plants, insects, and fungi). The increase in can be degraded with the loss of species, concern exists that
the number of forest-associated species reported here reflects the goods and services humans derive from ecological systems
growing inventory coverage among groups for which our will become diminished as more species become rare. For this
understanding of habitat associations has been incomplete reason, tracking the number and percent of at-risk species is a
(e.g., vascular plants, and invertebrates). Until comprehensive measure of the health of forest ecosystems and their ability to
biodiversity inventories are implemented, trends in the number support species diversity.
of native forest species will have to be interpreted cautiously.
The most fundamental need is to develop monitoring programs What does the indicator show?
that are economically feasible and applicable across the diverse
Among forest-associated species (vascular plants, vertebrates,
groups of species that inhabit forest ecosystems.
and select invertebrates), 77 (less than 1 percent) were
Figure 4-2. A comparison of the 2003 report trends (1975–1999) to recent trends (1999–2006) in forest bird species
counts. (a) Those strata that have continued to see increases in bird species counts or were declining in the 2003
report but have become increasing. (b) Those strata that have continued to see decreases in bird species counts or
were increasing in the 2003 report but have become decreasing (data provided by U.S. Geological Survey).
(a) (b)
Change in forest Change in forest

bird species bird species
Became increasing Became increasing
Still increasing Still increasing

determined to be presumed or possibly extinct, 4,005 (27 and vertebrates (23 more species). The sizable percentage
percent) were determined to be at-risk of extinction (includes gains among vascular plants and invertebrates (fig. 5-2a) are
species that are critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable largely attributable to newly available data rather than from
to extinction), and 10,576 (71 percent) were determined to be a real increase in the percentage of species consider at risk.
apparently secure. The percentage of forest-associated species Among the relatively well-studied vertebrates, an increase of
in each conservation status category varies by taxonomic group about 0.8 percent has occurred since the 2003 report. Among
(fig. 5-1a). The number of possibly extinct and at-risk species vertebrate species groups (fig. 5-2b) the greatest percent gains
is proportionately greatest among select invertebrates (32 per- in species thought extinct or at risk of extinction were observed
cent), followed by vascular plants (28 percent), and vertebrates among amphibians (an increase of 2.2 percent), followed by
(16 percent). Within forest-associated vertebrates, the greatest mammals (an increase of 1.0 percent), reptiles (an increase of
proportion of possibly extinct and at-risk species is found among 0.9 percent), and birds (an increase of 0.5 percent).
amphibians (34 percent). Birds (14 percent), freshwater fishes
(12 percent), mammals (11 percent), and reptiles (11 percent) Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at
show proportionately lower numbers of species that are of this time?
conservation concern. At-risk species that are associated with
Information on the conservation status of obscure species is
forest habitats are concentrated geographically in Hawaii, the
lacking in many cases. Among all species (not just forest associ-
arid montane habitats of the Southwest, chaparral and sage
ated), 281 (1.7 percent) vascular plant, 14 (less than 1 percent)
habitats of Mediterranean California, and in the coastal and
vertebrate, and 660 (9.0 percent) invertebrate species (select
inland forests of northern and central California (fig. 5-1b).
groups) have not been, as yet, assigned a conservation status
category nor a habitat affinity. Given the number of species
What has changed since 2003? for which conservation status ranks are forthcoming, trends in
Since the 2003 report, a broader accounting of species that the number of forest-associated species by conservation status
inhabit forests has resulted in an increase in the number of species will need cautious interpretation because gains are expected
that are considered possibly extinct or at risk of extinction, with as unranked species are evaluated. Regional trend analyses
the greatest increase reported among vascular plants (3,644 were also limited by the fact that the ecoregional stratification
more species). The number of species of conservation concern changed from the 2003 to the 2010 reports.
also increased among select invertebrates (108 more species)
Figure 5-1. (a) The percent of vascular plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate species associated with forest habitats
determined to be possibly extinct, at risk of extinction, secure, or unranked. (b) The percentage of forest-associated
species (vascular plants, vertebrates, and select invertebrates) occurring in each ecoregion determined to be at risk
of extinction (does not include species classified as possibly extinct). (2009, data provided by NatureServe.)
(a) 100 (b)
80
Percent of species
60
40
20
0
Vascular Vertebrates Invertebrates Percent
plants 0–1.6
>1.6–3.3
Unranked Secure At-risk Possibly extinct >3.3–8.8
>8.8–12.3
>12.3–66.5

Figure 5-2. A comparison of the percent of forest-associated species that have been determined possibly extinct or
at risk of extinction between the 2003 and 2010 reports among (a) vascular plants, vertebrates, and select inverte-
brates, and (b) among the relatively well-known mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and freshwater fish species groups.
Because the conservation status of forest-associated freshwater fish species (▲) were unavailable for the 2003
report, only a single-point estimate for the 2010 report is shown. (Actual reporting dates were 2002 and 2009.)
(a) 35 (b) 35
30 30
25 25
Percent of species
Percent of species
20 20
15 15
10 10
Mammals
Birds
5 Vascular plants 5 Reptiles
Vertebrates Amphibians
Invertebrates Fishes
0 0
2003 report 2010 report 2003 report 2010 report
Indicator 1.06. Status of Onsite and Offsite broad categories: (1) research associated with biological diversity,
including among others, knowledge about keystone species,
Efforts Focused on Conservation threatened species, functional groups, and spatial distribution;
of Species Diversity (2) environmental education and information about the impor-
tance of biological diversity, and (3) conservation projects
What is the indicator and why is it important? related to habitat restoration and biological diversity manage-
This indicator provides information that describes onsite ment. A fourth category of this indicator is (4) the proportion
and offsite efforts to conserve species diversity. Onsite of forest area managed for biological diversity conservation,
conservation efforts are those implemented within the forest. outside of protected areas, relative to total forest area. This
Offsite conservation efforts are usually measures of last resort indicator is closely related to Indicators 1.02 and 1.09.
which may move a species from its natural habitat or range to
specially protected areas or into captivity as part of a breeding What does the indicator show?
program or collection. Federal expenditures for research, education, and management
Some forest species and habitats may have declined to such associated with conservation of forest biological diversity are
an extent that intervention is required to safeguard them for concentrated in five Federal agencies:
the future. As a result of the biological diversity losses caused 1. Forest Service
by human pressure, different sectors of society (governments, 2. National Park Service
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and individual
3. Bureau of Land Management
citizens) are increasingly involved in conservation measures.
These conservation initiatives include scientific studies about 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
species at risk, keystone species assessments, laws, and projects 5. U.S. Geological Survey
that reinforce conservation of biological diversity, forest
In combination, those agencies spent approximately $2 billion
restoration, and connectivity.
in 2008 on research, education, and management that fosters
It is more practical to estimate expenditures associated with conservation of forest biological diversity (fig. 6-1). These
efforts to conserve biological diversity than to directly measure expenditures are the equivalent of $2.68 for every acre of forest
the results of those efforts. Expenditures by public agencies land in the United States State natural resource agencies and
directed at conservation of biological diversity fall into four hundreds of NGOs make additional expenditures associated

Figure 6-1. Expenditures by five U.S. agencies on Protected areas are integral parts of a national and global
research, education, and management associated with strategy to conserve biological diversity, but management of
conservation of forest species diversity, 2008. Expenditures some species of concern requires management prescriptions
for conservation of biological diversity in general or con- that are incompatible with protected area regulations. Conse-
servation of species diversity in particular are not tracked quently, forest land outside of protected areas is also essential
separately in agency budgets. Therefore, values for each to conservation of species diversity.
agency are a compilation of activities closely aligned
with conservation of biodiversity and adjusted for relative
proportion of forest versus nonforest land affected. What has changed since 2003?
This indicator was not reported in 2003.
2,500
Dollar expenditures (millions)
Bureau of Land Management

2,000
U.S. Geological Survey Are there important regional differences?
1,500
National Park Service Most of U.S. public forest land is in the West where much of
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that public forest is managed for conservation of species diver-
1,000 sity as part of a multiobjective management strategy (fig. 6-2).
500 Forest Service
Conservation of species diversity and habitat restoration are
priorities for much of the public forest land in the East, but 87
0 percent of eastern forest land is privately owned. Consequently
2006 2007 2008
private forest owners in the East are important in large-scale
Year
efforts to conserve species diversity.
with research, education, and management for conservation Private landowners play a large role in many aspects of species
of species diversity. Although the expenditures made by these diversity conservation research, education, and management.
groups for biological diversity conservation are impractical Consequently, this indicator underestimates the full magnitude
to compile and track separately over time, collectively, they of efforts directed at conservation of species diversity.
represent significant investments that are assumed to have
significant effects.
Most public forest land is managed with a priority on the this time?
conservation of species diversity but that objective is usually Conservation of species diversity is often linked with other
pursued as an integral part of a multiobjective management management objectives, so associated Federal expenditures are
strategy. Of the 751 million acres of forest land in the United impossible to fully separate from other objectives. Moreover,
States, 328 million acres (44 percent) are in public ownership
States, school districts, NGOs, and private landowners play
(fig. 6-2) (also see Indicator 1.01). Nationally, 106 million
a large role in many aspects of species diversity conservation
acres of predominantly public forest land are classified as
research, education, and management. Consequently, this
protected (see Indicator 1.02). At least 37 million additional
indicator underestimates the full magnitude of efforts directed
acres of private land are protected in conservation trusts and
at conservation of species diversity.
similar instruments; however, insufficient data exist to tally
only the forested acres under private protection.

Figure 6-2. Forest land ownership in the conterminous United States. Public forest land is managed to conserve
biological diversity, usually as part of a multiobjective management strategy. Public forest land is concentrated in the
West. Alaska (72 percent) and Hawaii (34 percent) also have large proportions of their forest land in public ownership.
CBI = Conservation Biology Institute. ESRI = Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. USGS = U.S. Geological Survey.
Indicator 1.07. Number and Geographic occupy a smaller portion of their former distribution signals a
potential lost of their genetic variation. This erosion in genetic
Distribution of Forest-Associated Species at variation makes species less able to adapt to environmental
Risk of Losing Genetic Variation change, increases the risk of extinction, and lowers the overall
and Locally Adapted Genotypes resilience of forest ecosystems.
What is this indicator and why is it important? What does the indicator show?
This indicator provides information on the number and The geographic distributions of most species (based on
distribution of forest-associated species at risk of losing genetic current and historical State-level occurrence records) have not
variation across their geographic range. Comparing a species’ been appreciably reduced. Geographic distribution data for
current geographic distribution with its historic distribution is 29,783 forest-associated species show that 90 percent fully
the basis for identifying those species whose range has con- occupy their former range. Of the 3,078 species that have
tracted significantly. Human activities are accelerating changes been extirpated from at least one State, 50 percent still occupy
in species’ distributions through land use conversions, climate greater than or equal to 90 percent of their former distribution.
change, the alteration of native habitats, the introduction of The number of species that now occupy less than 80 percent of
exotic species, and direct exploitation. The size of a species’ their distribution varies by taxonomic group (fig. 7-1a). Range
distribution is often related to the number of genetically distinct contraction of this magnitude is most commonly observed
populations that exist. Consequently, species that currently among freshwater fishes (6.2 percent). Species groups with

at least 5 percent of species occupying less than 80 percent Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at
of their former ranges include select invertebrates, birds, and this time?
mammals. Geographically, States that have lost the greatest
Estimates of species’ geographic distributions are a basic need
number of species associated with forests are concentrated in
of conservation plans. Although historical records, species
the Mid-Atlantic Region and into New England (fig. 7-1b).
collections, and expert opinion are available to estimate the dis-
tribution of most vascular plant and vertebrate species, we lack
What has changed since 2003? much of these data for those species groups that collectively
Comparisons of the percent of species occupying less than 80 represent most of described species (e.g., many invertebrates,
percent of their former range with the 2003 report is restricted fungi). Even among vascular plants and vertebrates we lack the
to terrestrial vertebrate taxa. Among these species groups, data needed to refine the coarse State-level analysis reported
range contraction of this magnitude increased the most among here to quantify species range changes across the landscape. In
forest-associated birds, followed by amphibians and reptiles particular, reconstruction of former distributions is hampered
(fig. 7-2a). The percent of mammals with range declines of this by the absence of comprehensive historic records. Although
magnitude actually declined since the 2003 report. A broader efforts are under way to document species distributions, these
accounting of species that inhabit forests has occurred because compilations are often based on expert opinion that provides
of new habitat affinity data. The number of forest-associated an estimate of the current range only. Because a species’
species that have been extirpated from States has increased geographic distribution is dynamic, a statistically designed
noticeably in the Eastern United States (fig. 7-2b). The inventory that permits an objective and systematic assessment
Mid-Atlantic, several New England States, and Missouri saw of range occupancy over time is needed to fully meet the intent
gains in excess of 75 species since the 2003 report. This gain in of this indicator.
extirpated species is largely attributable to more comprehensive
treatment of vascular plants and invertebrates that were not
included in the 2003 analysis.
Figure 7-1. (a) The percentage of vascular plants, vertebrates, and select invertebrates associated with forest habitats
that now occupy less than 80 percent of their former geographic distribution (based on State-level occurrence data).
(b) The number of forest-associated species (vascular plants, vertebrates [no freshwater fish], and select invertebrates)
that have been extirpated within each State. (2009, data provided by NatureServe).
(a) 7 (b)
6
Species with significant range
5
contraction (percent)
0 Number of species
extirpated
s
es
als
s
t
rd
ian
ile
he
an
<=25
at
Bi
pt
fis
ib
br
pl
am
Re
ph
te
er
>25–50
lar
M
r
at
Am
ve
cu
hw
In
>50–75
s
Va
es
Fr
>75–100
>100

Figure 7-2. A comparison of the 2003 and 2010 reports Indicator 1.08. Population Levels of Selected
for forest-associated terrestrial vertebrates on (a) the
percentage of species that now occupy less than 80 Representative Forest-Associated Species To
percent for their former geographic distribution (based Describe Genetic Diversity.
on State-level occurrence data), and (b) the number
of species (vascular plants, vertebrates [no freshwater What is this indicator and why is it important?
fish], and select invertebrates) that have been extirpated
within each State. (Actual reporting dates were 2002 This indicator uses population trends of selected bird and tree
and 2009.) species as a surrogate measure of genetic diversity. Popula-
tion decreases, especially associated with small populations,
(a) 6
can lead to decreases in genetic diversity, and contribute to
increased risk of extinction. Many forest-associated species
Species with significant range contraction (percent)
5 rely on some particular forest structure, vegetation associations,

Amphibians or ecological processes. Monitoring population levels of such
Birds
Mammals
representative species will indicate the status of the associations
4 Reptiles of species associated with specialized conditions. Management
use of this indicator will ensure forest health conditions are
being monitored and may help avoid species extinction.
3
What does the indicator show?

2
Between 1966 and 2006, about 27 percent of forest-associated
bird species increased and 25 percent decreased; for nearly
1
one-half the species no strong evidence existed for an increas-
ing or decreasing trend. Most of 38 tree species or species
groups analyzed showed increases in number of stems of
0 greater than 50 percent for moderate to large diameter classes
2003 report 2010 report
(greater than 12 inches in diameter) between 1970 and 2007
(fig. 8-1). State wildlife agency data indicate that populations
(b)
of many big game species increased in the past 25 years, but
forest-associated small game species showed mixed trends.
Are there important regional differences?

The South has the greatest proportion of physiographic
regions with higher numbers of bird species with significantly
decreasing trends compared to bird species with significantly
increasing trends (fig. 8-2). For tree species, the Pacific Coast
Region has a greater number of tree species or species groups
showing declines in large diameter classes compared to other
regions (fig. 8-3).
Number of species
extirpated
<5
5–25
>25–50 Most forest-associated bird species with significantly decreasing
>50–75 population trends between 1966 and 2003 also had decreasing
>75 trends between 1966 and 2006. Bird species associated with
early successional and wetland habitats are among those with
declining population trends; populations of some generalist
bird species and some favored by burning have increased (fig.
8-4a). Most tree species showed relatively small changes in
stem numbers since 2002, although a few species such as black
walnut had increases greater than 15 percent and other species
such as jack pine decreased by greater than 25 percent (fig. 8-4b).

Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at for monitoring population levels of other taxa and an objective
this time? approach for selecting a minimum subset of species that will
adequately represent the status of genetic diversity across the
Population data are lacking for taxa other than trees, birds, and
full biota.
a small subset of hunted species. We need systematic strategies
Figure 8-1. Number of tree species or groups of spe- Figure 8-2. Difference (D) between the number of forest
cies in the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) database bird species with significantly (P is less than 0.1) increas-
by percent change in stem numbers (a measure of tree ing and decreasing population trends, by physiographic
population size), by FIA diameter class mid-points, for region, between 1966 and 2006, calculated from the
trees greater than 5 inches in diameter breast height, U.S. Geological Survey Breeding Bird Survey database.
between 1970 and 2006.
Rocky Mountain
North
Pacific
30 Coast
Number of species
20
10 South
D
<–14
–14 to –8 8 to 14
0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 29+ –7 to –1 >14
Diameter class (inches) 0 to 7 No data
<– 50% – 50 to 0% 0 to 50% >+ 50%
Figure 8-3. Number of tree species or groups of species in the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) database by
percent change in stem numbers, by FIA diameter class midpoints, for trees greater than 5 inches in diameter breast
height (dbh), between 1970 and 2007, by region: (a) Pacific Coast, (b) Rocky Mountain, (c) North, and (d) South.
(a) Pacific Coast (b) North
10 25
Number of tree species or
8 20
groups of species
6 15
4 10
2 5
0 0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 29+ 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 29+
(c) Rocky Mountain (d) South

10 25
Number of tree species or
8 20
groups of species
6 15
4 10
2 5
0
0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 29+ 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 29+
dbh class (inches) dbh class (inches)
< – 50% – 50 to 0% 0 to 50% > + 50%

(a) (b) Cypress
Eastern hemlock
6 15
groups of sp
Number of tree s
4 10
2 5
0
0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 29+ 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 25 29+
Figure 8-4. (a) Number dbhof forest bird species by population trend. Classes betweendbh
class (inches) 1966
classand 2006 for the subset of
(inches)
species that had significantly (P is less than or
< – 50%equal to 0.1)
– 50 to 0% decreasing
0 to 50% population
> + 50% trends between 1966 and 2003,
calculated from the U.S. Geological Survey Breeding Bird Survey database. (b) Frequency of tree species or groups
of species in the Forest Inventory and Analysis database by relative change classes in total stem numbers between
2002 and 2007.
(a) (b) Cypress
Eastern hemlock
Cottonwood and aspen
Pinyon jay Spruce-fir
25 Cassin’s finch 9
Select red oaks Other western hardwoods
Olive-sided warbler 8 Loblolly-shortleaf
Golden-winged warbler Yellow birch
20
Numbers of species
Loggerhead shrike 7 beech

Pine siskin Ruby-crowned kinglet 6
Frequency
15 Cerulean warbler Other
Red-breasted nuthatch 5 yellow
Northern bobwhite pines
4 Other western
10 Commom Jack softwoods
goldeneye 3 pine Black walnut
King rail Three-toed 2
5 woodpecker
1
0 0
– 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2.5 – 2 – 1.5 – 1 – 0.5 0 1 2 4 6
28
23
18
13
08
08
13
18
02
02
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Trend (1966–2006)
–
Trend (1966–2006)
Indicator 1.09. Status of Onsite and Offsite Offsite genetic conservation efforts tend to be intensive and
are often focused on breeding programs or archival programs.
Efforts Focused on Conservation These measures are sometimes undertaken, for example, to
of Genetic Diversity ensure that seed used for replanting after harvest has sufficient
genetic diversity. Offsite genetic conservation occurs at zoos,
What is the indicator and why is it important? seed banks, seed orchards, clonal archives, arboretums, and
This indicator describes the extent of onsite and offsite similar facilities. These are summarized in table 9-1. Institu-
conservation efforts for native species at the genetic level. tions differ in the proportion of total effort that is focused on
Onsite efforts are those conducted in the field, such as efforts to forest species. Some institutions work on global and domestic
increase populations of endangered species. Offsite efforts are forest genetic diversity conservation.
conducted in laboratories, greenhouses, arboreta, seed banks,
seed orchards, and similar facilities. Sustainable forest manage- What has changed since 2003?
ment requires a commitment to conserve locally or regionally This indicator was not reported in 2003.
adapted populations of native species using a combination of
onsite and offsite approaches. Are there important regional differences?
Many broadscale, onsite efforts to conserve genetic diversity
are associated with public forest land and protected areas.
Onsite conservation of genetic diversity is provided by parks Much public forest land is managed to conserve species
and other protected areas, genetic and ecological conservation diversity and genetic diversity as part of a multiobjective
areas, reserved forest areas, and through planned natural management strategy. Public forest land and protected forests
regeneration. Onsite conservation efforts for genetic diversity in all ownerships are concentrated in the Western United States
of plants and animals vary greatly in spatial extent and intensity (see Indicators 1.02 and 1.06).
of management. Many public forests include genetic conserva-
tion for common species as a primary management goal and Offsite programs for conservation of genetic diversity are
are managed intensively for species that are rare, threatened, widely dispersed. Zoos, arboretums, and seed banks often work
endangered, or of special concern. Some private forests also on global and national issues associated with genetic conserva-
are managed to conserve genetic diversity. These onsite efforts tion. Facilities such as seed orchards, clonal archives, and
to conserve genetic diversity largely overlap with efforts to provenance tests that grow plant material are constrained by the
conserve species diversity that are described for Indicator 1.06, climate where they are located, but they also can participate in
and that material is not duplicated here. international efforts to conserve genetic material.

Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at Most management decisions affecting forest land managed by
this time? the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Corps of En-
Conservation of genetic diversity occurs in many places and
gineers consider effects on genetic and species diversity, with
many ways. Arboretums, herbaria, seed collections, seed
particular emphasis on species of regional, national, or global
orchards, zoos, and dedicated breeding programs are intensive
conservation concern (see Indicator 1.05). Some State, county,
approaches (primarily offsite) for conservation of genetic diver-
and private forests are managed with emphasis on conservation
sity. These are funded by Federal, State, and local governments
of species and genetic diversity. So are numerous private lands,
and by NGOs. Ecologists, botanists, biologists, and foresters at
including those protected by conservation easements or land
universities across the United States are engaged in projects to
trusts. It is not possible to enumerate all such efforts, or to
conserve genetic diversity of forest plants and animals. State
discern the proportion of such efforts that is associated with
and local native plant societies organize private individuals
conservation of genetic diversity of forest-associated species.
devoted to both genetic and species conservation. No practical
The quantitative information presented in this indicator does
way exists to enumerate all such efforts or the proportion of
not include many of these efforts and, thus, underestimates the
their efforts that is concentrated on forest associated species.
total magnitude of work devoted to the conservation of genetic
Extensive (primarily onsite) efforts aimed at genetic conservation diversity.
take place on public and private lands across the United States.
Table 9-1. Summary of agencies, institutions, and organizations that work on conservation of genetic diversity
(complied in 2009).
Category Number
Arboretums affiliated with the American Public Gardens Association. Arboretums work largely, but not exclusively, with trees and other woody 91
species. The American Public Gardens Association also has 176 affiliated botanical gardens and 14 native plant gardens. Some of these include
forest-associated species and some (e.g., Missouri Botanical Garden) work on issues related to global forest diversity sustainability.
The Center for Plant Conservation coordinates the national efforts that conserve threatened and endangered species in offsite collections 36
(primarily botanic gardens and arboreta).
Zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. All focus on education, some have active research programs, and many feature 181
forest-associated species from outside the United States.
Accredited aquariums. Populations of freshwater and anadromous fish, in particular, are closely tied to forest ecosystems. 37
States that fund forest tree nursery programs with total expenditures of $37 million. Many have associated seed orchards. Hundreds of private 33
tree nurseries compliment State efforts as do the 58 commercial suppliers of tree and shrub seed.
The Federal Government has a number of agencies that actively manage offsite seed stores that conserve much native genetic diversity. These Several
include the Forest Service genetics programs (primarily forest species), the BLM Seeds of Success program (range and forest species) and the
National Genetic Resources Program (a small percentage of which is forest species), which is managed by the USDA/ARS. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation cooperates in the storage of forest species germplasm. The United States
cooperates with other international gene bank programs, including the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research and the Svalbard
Global Seed Vault.
The Plant Conservation Alliance is a consortium of 10 Federal agencies and 270 non-Federal cooperators representing various disciplines within 280
the conservation field. Cooperators include many of the arboretums and botanical gardens mentioned above. Agencies and cooperators work
collectively to solve the problems of native plant extinction and native habitat restoration. Federal agencies in the Alliance include the Forest
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and U.S. Geological Survey.
Native plant societies in the United States. They collect, preserve, and propagate native seed sources for use in restoration projects. Many are 88
associated with the Plant Conservation Alliance.
Herbaria in the United States that maintain millions of plants specimens. They document plant biodiversity, serve as a valuable reference for plant 697
taxonomy, and can also serve as sources of DNA. The U.S. National Seed Herbarium is part of the U.S. National Arboretum.
Databases such as NatureServe and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Plants database compile information about taxonomy, range, and status Several
of many forest-associated plants and animals. This activity aids in measuring biodiversity.
ARS = Agricultural Research Service. BLM = Bureau of Land Management. DNA = Deoxyribonucleic acid.

Criterion 2
Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems
What is this criterion and why is it important? collects data in each State every year. The current exceptions
are Wyoming (last survey 2001), New Mexico (last survey
Forests, directly or indirectly, provide a wide range of extrac-
2000), Nevada (last survey 1989), Hawaii (last survey 1986)
tive and nonextractive goods and services. The nature of
and interior Alaska (no complete previous survey), which are
theses goods and services change over time as a consequence
scheduled to begin annualized inventories pending sufficient
of changes in social and economic demands, technology, and
program funding. In the long term, this new approach will al-
actions taken in the forest to provide the goods and services.
low rolling average summaries of the status of forest inventory,
Changes in the productive capacity of forests could be a signal
health, and harvesting data every year. For nonwood products,
of unsound forest management or unforeseen agents affecting
a wider range of data sets is available for public lands since
ecosystems. This criterion has five indicators for evaluating
2003, but data for private lands are still incomplete.
the productive capacity of forest ecosystems. The first four
indicators track traditional measures related to status and trends The indicators––Readers wishing to compare results of the
in forests available for wood supplies and the final indicator 2003 and 2010 reports need to be aware of changes in the
addresses trends nonwood related goods and services of the criteria and indicators. In 2007, the Montréal Working Group
forest. The presentations in this criterion will provide informa- completed a review and revision of the indicators in Criteria 2
tion by major geographic region. based on the experiences of the first round of country reports.
The following table summarizes the revisions. Indicator
What has changed since 2003? reference numbers for 2003 and 2010 are provided to assist in
The data––The most significant change since 2003 is the fresh- comparisons with the previous report. A more detailed rationale
ness of the data. In 1999, the Forest Inventory and Analysis for the revisions may be found at http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/
(FIA) program shifted from periodic surveys of each State mpci/meetings/18_e.html.
on a roughly 10-year cycle to an annualized survey, which
Criterion 2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems.

2003 2010
Reference Reference
10 Area of forest land and net area of forest land available Change “timber” to “wood” 2.10 Area and percent of forest land and net area
for timber production of forest land available for wood production
11 Total growing stock of both merchantable and Change “timber” to “wood” 2.11 Total growing stock and annual increment
nonmerchantable tree species on forest land available of both merchantable and nonmerchantable
for timber production tree species in forests available for wood
production
12 The area and growing stock of plantations of native and No change 2.12 Area, percent, and growing stock of
exotic species plantations of native and exotic species
13 Annual removal of wood products compared to the Add comparison to “net growth” 2.13 Annual harvest of wood products by volume
volume determined sustainable and as a percentage of net growth or
sustained yield
14 Annual removal of nontimber forest products (e.g. fur Change “timber” to “wood” 2.14 Annual harvest of nonwood forest products
bearers, berries, mushrooms, game), compared to the
level determined to be sustainable

Indicator 2.10. Area and Percent of Forest Figure 10-1. Forest land by region and forest class, 2007.
250
Land and Net Area of Forest Land Available 250
for Wood Production 200
Acres (millions)
200
250 150
250
Acres (millions)
What is the indicator and why is it important? 150 100
200
Acres (millions)
200
This indicator provides information fundamental to calculating 50
150
100
the wood production capacity of existing forests and shows
Acres (millions)
150 0
100
how much forest is potentially available for wood production,
50
compared with total forest area. The availability and the 100
50
capability of forest land to provide desired goods and services 0
0
is a critical indicator of the balance of forest ecosystems 50
Rocky
North Pacific South
Alaska
Mountain Coast
relative to potential end uses. The multitemporal nature of the Region
100
management objectives and planning guidelines for diverse 0 Reserved and other forest Planted timber land 90
U.S. owners, however, make it difficult to summarize the area Natural/seminatural timber land
Mountain Coast 80
100
of forest available for wood production in a single value at a Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory
Region and Analysis
70
single point in time, much less consistently over time. Within 250
Reserved and other forest Planted timber land 90
Natural/seminatural timber land 60
the context of this report, forest available for wood production Figure 10-2. Timber land and nontimber land forest 80
Percent
will be defined as forest land not precluded by law or regulation area by region, 1953, 1977, and 2007. 50
70
from commercial harvesting of trees or timber land. In practice, 250
200
40
60
the area available for wood production at any given time will
Percent
30
50
always be a value less than total timber land. The amount of 20
40
the area adjustment required to determine the actual availability 200
Acres (millions)
150 10
30
of timber land will depend on the ownership mix and the
0
management constraints in place at the time of analysis. This 20 P
tim
adjustment will affect all other indicators in Criterion 2 as well.
Acres (millions)
150 10
100
0
P
What does the indicator show? tim
100
Forest land in the United States, totaling 751 million acres, is 50
nearly equally distributed between East and West, with 387
million acres in the East (North and South Regions) and 365
50
million acres in the West (Rocky Mountain, Pacific Coast, and 0
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
Alaska Regions). Timber lands, including natural and seminatu-
ral stands and planted forests comprise the largest category of North South Rocky Pacific Alaska
0 Mountain Coast
forest (fig. 10-1) with 514 million acres nationally; 368 million
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
Region
acres (72 percent) of this total is in the East and 146 million Timber land Nontimber land forest
acres in the West. Planted forests currently comprise 12 percent North South Rocky Pacific Alaska
Mountain Coast
(63 million acres) of all U.S. timber land and the area is increasing. Region
250
Timber land Nontimber land forest
Planted forests are most common in the South where 45 million
acres (72 percent) of all such forests in the United States occur. 200
Planted forests are discussed in more detail in Indicator 2.12. Conifer
250 forest types are fairly equally distributed
between the
Acres (millions)
The total area of timber land in the United States has been East150
and West and broadleaf types are dominant in the East
stable during the past 50 years with an overall loss of only (fig.200
10-4).
1 percent (fig. 10-2). 100
Acres (millions)
Private
150 timber lands currently account for 91 percent of U.S.
Ownership also plays a key role in the area available for U.S. wood production, compared to 86 percent in 1952 (fig. 10-5).
50
wood production. Timber land is generally concentrated on Although
100 public ownerships have the benefit of very long-term
private lands in the East (fig. 10-3) and public lands in the tenure,0 recent public land policy shifts toward reducing the
West. Overall, private timber lands account for 356 million amount
50 of wood harvested from public lands have contributed
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
acres, about 69 percent of all forest available for wood produc- to increased pressure on private forests in the United States and
tion in the United States. increased
0 imports to meet U.S. Mountain
wood needs.Coast
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
Region
Public Private
II–34 North National
South Report
Rockyon Sustainable
Pacific Forests—2010
Alaska
Mountain Coast
Region
0
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
Mountain Coast
Region
Timber land
Figure 10-3. Timber Nontimber land forest
land area by ownership and region, The notion of sustainability of forest available for wood pro-
1953, 1977, and 2007. duction is linked to the demand for these forests for other uses.
250 Natural events, and competing societal forces can also affect
availability. Fire, weather, and insect and disease outbreaks can
200 seriously affect supplies at any given time. Forest productivity
can also be altered by pollution and human-caused degradation.
Acres (millions)
150 Consumer preferences, recycling, and investments in the for-

estry sector and availability of workers also play a significant
100 role in wood production. Sound institutional frameworks that
provide continuous monitoring of critical aspects of forests are
50 invaluable. Simply put, wood production relies on the existence
of available forest land and all of the factors that influence the
0 sustainability of that land.
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
1953
1977
2007
Rocky North
Mountain
Pacific
Coast
South Alaska What has changed since 2003?
Region Timber land has increased by 7 million acres in the East (2 percent)
Public Private
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis and 3 million acres in the West (2 percent) since 2003. Much of
the increase came from the reclassification of previously marginal
Figure 10-4. Timber land in the United States by major timber lands or areas, particularly in the mid-section of the country,
cover type, 1953 and 2007. that were previously classified as nonforest. This reclassification
250 is more consistent with national standard definitions, and was
200 applied to areas that tended to be privately owned.
Acres (millions)
150
250
100 Indicator 2.11. Total Growing Stock and
200
Annual Increment of Both Merchantable and
Acres (millions)
50
150
0 Nonmerchantable Tree Species in Forests
100 1953 2007 1953 1953
East West Available for Wood Production
50 Region
Conifer Broadleaf Mixed
Alaska 0 USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
Source: What is the indicator and why is it important?
1953 2007 1953 1953
100 East West Growing stock is a fundamental element in determining the
ber land
Figure
90 10-5. Percent of timber land area and wood
Region
productive capacity of the area identified as forest available for
removals by ownership group.Broadleaf
Conifer Mixed
wood production. Knowledge of growing stock of the various
Alaska 80
100
70
species that make up the forest and how it changes over time
ber land 90 is central to considerations of a sustainable supply of wood for
60
products and the sustainability of the overall ecosystems that
Percent
80
50
provide them.
70
40
60
Percent
50
20
The Nation’s forests contain more than 800 species of trees.
40
10 Because changes in markets and technology dictate species
30
0 use for wood products, it is difficult to assign the status of
Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
20 timberland wood timberland wood nonmerchantable to any given species except those of very
area removals area removals
10 small stature or those with rare, threatened, or endangered
Public ownership Private ownership
0 status. Variability in the condition of the size and quality of
1952 1976 2006
Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
timberland wood timberland wood these trees has considerable bearing on their value in wood
area removals area removals products. Generally speaking, about 94 percent of all live tree
Public ownership Private ownership
volume on timber land in the United States is considered to be
1952 1976 2006
growing stock or wood capable of being used for commercial
1953
1977
2007
Alaska National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 II–35

3
7
7
products. The remaining 6 percent are trees of poor form, small Figure 11-1. Growing stock volume on timber land by
stature, or otherwise unsuited for wood products. Given the region, 1953, 1977, and 2007.
minor influence of nonmerchantable volume relative to total 250
live volume of timber on forests available for wood production,
the remainder of the discussion for this indicator will focus on 200
merchantable or growing stock volume.
Acres (millions)
250
150
Overall, growing stock volume (fig. 11-1) has been rising in
all regions of the country, for the past 50 years. The exception 200
100
Acres (millions)
being the Pacific Coast and Alaska where harvesting of large
150
timber and losses of high-volume timber lands to reserves in 50
the 1970s and 1980s resulted in declines. Recent reductions in 100

0
harvest in this region have reversed this trend.
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
50
With a relatively stable base of forest land available for timber
production or timber land (Indicator 2.10) and a historic pattern 0
Rocky Pacific
North South Alaska
Mountain Coast
of growth exceeding removals (Indicator 2.13), the volume
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Region and species group
of growing stock in the United States has been rising steadily 1953 1977 2007
for more than 50 years. The current total of 932 billion feet of Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
growing stock is 51 percent higher than the volume in 1953. 60 Mountain Coast
Region and species group
U.S. conifer growing stock volume totals 529 billion cubic Figure 11-2. Average 1953 growing1977 stock growth
per acre on
50 2007
feet or 57 percent of all growing stock. Conifer growing stock timber land by ownership group, 1953 and 2007.
volume is concentrated primarily in the West and South.
acrefeet per acre
60
40
Broadleaves, at 403 billion cubic feet, account for 43 percent
of all growing stock volume in the United States. Broadleaf 50
30
volume has risen 118 percent since 1953 as second and third
Cubic
40
growth forests of the North and South continue to mature. 20
Cubic feet per
Growth rates on timber land have increased on all land owner- 30

10
ships (fig. 11-2). The higher rate of increase on National forests
20
due, in part, to a response to vigorous young stands replacing 0
National forest Other public Private
older slower growing stands harvested in the 70s and 80s or 10 Ownership group
lost to fire. The higher overall rates and lower net change on 1952 2006
private lands reflects the history of these lands being the primary 0
350 National forest Other public Private
source of wood production in the United States for decades. Ownership group
300 1952 2006
As mentioned in other indicators in this Criterion, ownership
has a direct bearing on management policy and access to avail- 250
350
Cubic feet (billions)
able timber. Timber volumes are distributed unevenly among

200
300
owners because of many factors (fig. 11-3), among them history
slowing growth of maturing broadleaf stands. This slowing
of use, land productivity, and degree of management. As public 150
growth
250 will likely abate slightly as regeneration following the
agencies have adjusted management policies to respond to

recent
100 increases in harvesting gets established. The reduction of
increasing demand for uses of public forest land for recreation, 200
harvest on public land is reflected in sharply rising volumes per
wildlife habitat, and biodiversity conservation, the area and 50
acre150
in these forests, which may create new management issues
corresponding volume of wood available for harvest from
relative
0 to fire and overall forest health.
public timber lands is declining and placing additional pressure 100
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
on private timber land and imports. This pressure is further National forests, which account for only 19 percent of U.S. timber
50
heightened by improved technologies, which allow a shift to land, have 30 percent of all timber volume, and 46 percent of
broadleaves, which are dominant on private timber lands, for all conifer
0 National forest
timber Other public
volume. Changing Private
management policies have
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Owner and species group

many uses previously dominated conifers such as paper and significantly affected the national forests and the wood they
1953 2007
composite products to meet demand. Overall, growth on private supply. The national forests supplied 15 percent of U.S. wood
timber land is increasing, but has slowed in response to increas- in 1976, today they
National supply 2 percent.
forest The future of Private
Other public wood sup-
ing demand caused by shifts in policy and technology and the plies from this source is in question, but is likely to remain low.
1953 2007

Cubic
20
10
0
Ownership group
Figure 11-3. Growing stock volume on timber land by used to augment stocking with a preferred species, usually
region, owner, and species1952
group, 2006
1953 and 2007. Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine. In both cases the target is a crop
350 tree stand dominated by the preferred species and we will treat
them as similar because they have a common management goal.
300

In contrast to many other countries, virtually all tree planting

200
in the United States is of native species with nonnative species
150 comprising less than 1 percent of all planted forest. Two
types of planting can be identified; traditional plantations of
100
intensively managed trees where other vegetation is actively
50 suppressed, and planting to augment stocking of naturally re-
generating forests. The former, predominantly occur in the East
0
and the latter, predominantly in the West. Although conifers
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
Conifer
Broadleaf
overwhelmingly dominate, broadleaves such as high-value spe-
cies like black walnut and oaks are planted as well. In addition,
a nonnative hardwood, royal Pawlonia (Paulownia tomentosa)
1953 2007
is planted to produce wood for export markets. Although forest
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis planting is common in the United States, it should be noted that
fully two-thirds of all of the annual 11 million acres of forest
What has changed since 2003? harvested in the United States regenerate by natural means.
Growing stock volume increased from 856 billion to 932 billion During the past 50 years more than 100 million acres of forest
cubic feet (9 percent) as net growth continues to exceed have been planted in the United States (fig. 12-1), including
removals. Current conifer volume increased 8 percent (37 regeneration after harvest of previously planted stands and
billion cubic feet) from the 492 billion cubic feet reported in converted natural stands. During this time incentive programs
2003 and broadleaves increased 11 percent (39 billion cubic established millions of acres of planted forest, including the
feet) from the 364 billion cubic feet reported in 2003. Recent Soil Bank Program in the 1950s and the Conservation Reserve
large divestitures of timber lands by private corporate landown- Program during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Although most
ers, particularly forest industries, have left the future of what of these planted forests were established on private land, public
these lands will provide under their new ownership uncertain. funding was often used to help put them into place. Historically,
Arrangements for wood availability from these lands, ranging forest industries also leased private forest land or offered
for 10 to 50 years, however, were part of the forest industry management assistance to private landowners to establish or
divestiture strategy. maintain planted forests to assure future wood supplies. Recent
large divestitures of most forest industry land, however, may
have altered this practice and data from the new owners needs
Indicator 2.12. Area, Percent, and Growing to be monitored to evaluate this situation.
Stock of Plantations of Native and Exotic Overall, planted forests account for 8 percent of all U.S. forest
Species land and 12 percent of timber land, predominately comprised
of conifer species. In the West, planted forests account for an
What is the indicator and why is it important? estimated 12.2 million acres or 19 percent of all planted timber
This indicator is a measure of the degree to which forest land (table 12-1). About 95 percent of these occur in the Pacific
plantations are being established in response to increasing Coast Region. In the East, planted forest totals 51 million acres
demand for forest products and competing nontimber uses for or 80 percent of all planted timber land. Most planted forests
forest land. The provision of forest products from intensively are in the South which has 45 million acres, or about 71 percent
managed plantations, which are more productive and efficient, of all planted timber land, and are primarily comprised of
can enhance the potential range and quantity of goods and longleaf, slash, loblolly or shortleaf pine. Planted forest acreage
services available from the forest. continues to rise in the South and currently accounts for 22
percent of all timber land in the region. Increases at the current
In this indicator, we will look at planted forests in general. rate are not likely to continue as incentive programs subside
Planted forests in the East tend to be traditional, intensively and as previously planted stands are harvested and reestab-
managed pine plantations and in the West planting is generally lished with no increase in net area in planted timber land.

Planted forests make up a substantial component of only a few Figure 12-1. Area of tree planting in the United States
forest type groups across the country. In the South, loblolly- by major geographic region, 1952–2006.
shortleaf pine has the greatest acreage of planted timber land
3,000
(fig. 12-2) at 30 million acres or 48 percent of all planted timber
land followed by longleaf-slash pine with nearly 8 million 2,500
Acres (thousands)
acres. In the North Region, white-red-jack pine planted timber 2,000
lands are the most common with 2.8 million acres. And, in the
1,500
West, Douglas-fir has the largest area of planted timber land at
1,000
7 million acres.
500
Nationwide, about 75 billion cubic feet of growing-stock
inventory are contained in planted stands, about 8 percent of 0
1952 1958
1964 1970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006
total growing-stock inventory (fig. 12-3). This seemingly low Year
contribution to inventory relative to percentage of all timber North South West
Source: USDA Forest Service, Cooperative Forestry
land planted (12 percent) is because of the young age class
structure of the planted resource. Because of high productiv-
ity, planted stands make a significant contributions to timber Table
35 12-1. Area of forest land and planted and natural
timber
30 land.
inventory, even with a very young age-class structure.
Forest Timber land
25
In the South, planted stands are currently providing two-fifths Region and type
land Total Planted Natural
of the region’s softwood removals—a percentage that will Acres (millions)
East20 Million acres
rise as the relatively young stands increase in age. A forecast Loblolly-shortleaf pine
15
55 55 30 24
that planted timber lands in the South would supply more Longleaf-slash pine 15 14 8 6
White-red-jack
10 pine 11 10 3 7
than one-half of the softwood removals in the region by 2010, 3,000
Oak-pine 30 29 4 24
appears on track. Other 5types
2,500 277 260 6 255
Total 387 368 51 317
Acres (thousands)
Plantations are considered one of the best alternatives for 0

2,000 White- Longleaf- Loblolly- Douglas- Ponderosa Other
West
maintaining wood supplies in the face of shrinking areas of red-jack
Douglas-fir pine
slash shortleaf
39
fir
35
pine-
7
forest
28
1,500 pine pine hemlock- types
forest available for wood production because of competing Ponderosa pine 25
Forest type
23 1
fir-spruce 22
Hemlock-fir-spruce South 92 North 34West 1 33
uses. Because the Southern Region will likely continue its 1,000
Other types 209 54 3 52
dominance as the Nation’s wood basket well into the future, Total 500 365 146 12 134
this region’s high-yield planted forests will likely continue to U.S.450
total 751 514 63 451
0
play a crucial role in sustaining U.S. wood production. Source:
400 USDA
1952 Forest
1958 Service,
1964 Forest
1970 Inventory
1976 and
1982 Analysis
1988 1994 2000 2006
Year
During the past decade, significant changes in forest ownership 350
North South West

Figure 12-2. Area of planted timber land by major forest
have occurred in the United States. Large-scale divestiture 300
type and region, 2007.
of landholdings by forest industry has resulted in the shift of 250
35
millions of acres of these acres primarily to timber investment 200
management organizations (TIMOs) and real estate investment 30
150
trusts (REITs). Future changes in wood availability created by 25
100
these shifts will need to be monitored.
Acres (millions)
20
50
What has changed since 2003? 0

15
North South West
Region
The broader definition of planted forest versus plantations allowed 10
Natural Planted
for the inclusion of large areas of forest where augmented 5
stocking of natural regeneration takes place, mainly in the West.
0
On this basis, planted forests increased from 56 million acres in White- Longleaf- Loblolly- Douglas- Ponderosa Other
red-jack slash shortleaf fir pine- forest
2003 to 63 million acres currently. The South continues to be pine pine pine hemlock- types
fir-spruce
the main area for planted forests and increased from a reported Forest type
South North West
38 million acres in 2003 to 45 million acres in 2007. Volume Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
on planted forests increased from an adjusted 57 billion cubic
450
feet in 2003 to 75 billion cubic feet in 2007, a 32-percent
increase. Volume in the South increased from 30 to 42 billion 400
cubic feet (40 percent). 350

bic feet (billions)
300
II–38 250 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

200
10
A
5
0
White- Longleaf-
Loblolly- Douglas- Ponderosa Other
red-jack slash shortleaf fir pine- forest
pine pine pine hemlock- types
Forest type fir-spruce
Figure 12-3. Growing South
stock volume
North on
Westplanted and positive growth trends reflect regrowth and maturation of
natural forest by region, 2007. forests on lands that had been harvested before 1952. Invest-
450 ments in fire protection, landowner education, and silviculture
400
are also reflected in the trends. Changes in harvest patterns in
the 1990s resulted in growth and removals shifts by ownership
350
and region. Historically, most harvesting occurred on private

300
timber lands in the East and recent data show a further shift of
250
removals from public timber land in the West to private timber
200 land in the East as policies to reduce harvesting on public lands
150 in the West were implemented. Thus, growth has been exceed-
100 ing removals by a wider margin in the West while the gap has
50 been decreasing in the East. Interpreting growth trend data in
0
the West, particularly on public land, can be complicated by the
North South West reductions in harvesting and set asides of large areas of public
Region
Natural Planted timber land into reserves since the mid-1970s, thus, apparent
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis declines may be an artifact of this situation.
Although this situation is significant, recent major planting

Indicator 2.13. Annual Harvest of Wood of conifers in the South are rapidly becoming of commercial
Products by Volume and as a Percentage of size and are expected to improve the situation in that region.
Net Growth or Sustained Yield Current growth measures in the South may not fully reflect
anticipated growth on these planted forests. Currently, 91
percent of U.S. wood output is produced on private lands.
This indicator compares net growth with wood harvest (remov- Since 1952, overall conifer volume has increased 23 percent
als) for products on timber land. This comparison is a frequent- and broadleaf volume has increased 118 percent. The lower
ly used method of assessing whether or not wood harvesting is percentage for conifers is reflective of higher demand for wood
reducing the total volume of trees on forest available for wood products from these species. Growth exceeding removals in all
production. Growth is the net annual increase in the volume of regions for both conifers and broadleaves is reflective of this
growing stock between inventories after accounting for effects trend (figures 13-2 and 13-3).
of mortality, but before accounting for the effects of harvest. Based on site productivity data measured during field inven-
Removals are a measure of the average annual volume of grow- tories, an estimate can be made of the productive potential of
ing stock trees harvested between inventories. Timber land is U.S. forests and how they relate to the current situation (fig.
assumed to be the subset of forest land on which some level of 13-4). This measure provides and estimate of the productive
wood harvesting is potentially allowed. So long as growth (net capacity of forests based on maximum growth at the culmina-
of mortality) exceeds removals, the volume of trees on timber tion of mean annual increment. Overall, U.S. timber lands are
land is considered sustainable. This measure, however, conveys growing at 51 cubic feet per acre per year, as opposed to a
no information about quality, biodiversity, other attributes of potential of 77 cubic feet. Thus, current growth is 66 percent
ecology, or management objectives, and it should be consid- of its estimated maximum potential. A clear capacity exists
ered in conjunction with other indicators as part of an overall to sustain present levels of timber harvest from a pure wood
analysis of objectives for forest ecosystem sustainability. volume standpoint, even at current growth rates. Many reasons
exist, however, as to why the potential growth may not be
What does the indicator show? achieved. The main reason is that the diverse objectives of
Growth has exceeded removals on U.S. timber lands for the many different owners of U.S. timber lands may not have
several decades (fig. 13-1), although the area of timber land the maximization of wood fiber production as their primary
has remained relatively stable. The result has been a substantial objective.
increase in the volume of growing stock on U.S. timber lands.
Saw and veneer logs and pulp wood are the dominant primary
In the past decade, growth continued to exceed removals for
wood products from U.S. timber lands, comprising 94 percent
both publicly and privately owned timber lands in the East
of all wood removals, up from 75 percent in 1953 (fig. 13-5).
(North and South Regions) and West (Rocky Mountain, Pacific
Coast and Alaska Regions). Trends in growth on timber land Timber land is concentrated on private lands in the East and
since 1952 are attributable to several factors. In general, public lands in the West. Recent studies indicate that 58 percent

20
20
(billions)
feet(billions)
15
15
Cubicfeet
10
of noncorporate private owners have harvested wood on their growing
10 stock have declined from 15.8 to 15.5 billion cubic
Cubic
land. Recent large divestitures of forest land by private cor- feet since 2003. This decline is also reflected in the statistic
5
porate landowners, particularly forest industries, have left the that conifers
5 and broadleaf removals were 75 and 58 percent
future viability of these lands for wood production less clear. of growth respectively in 2003, and currently these values are
0
65 and
0 49 percent respectively. Demand has not subsided, and
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
What has changed since 2003? imports continue to rise to meet U.S. wood needs (Indicators
East6.32).
6.28, 6.30, and East West West
East East West West
Growth continues to exceed removals on U.S. timber lands, as Removals
Net growth
Net growth
Removals
Removals
Net growth
Net growth Removals
it has for more than 50 years. Overall, domestic removals of Region
Region
Figure 13-1. Growth and removals of growing stock on Figure 13-2. Net growth and removals of conifers in the
timber land by owner group and region, 1952–2006. United States, 1952–2006. Net growth Removals
9 Net growth Removals
Public Private 9
rivate 25
8
8
20
7
7 6
6
15 6
(billions)
6
5
feet(billions)
5
5
5
(billions)
10 4
feet(billions)
Cubicfeet 4
4
4
Cubic
5 3
3
Cubicfeet
3
3
Cubic
2
2 2
0 2
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
2006
1 1
1 1
East East West West
Net growth Removals Net growth Removals 0 0
als 0 0
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
Region
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
Rocky Pacific North South Alaska
Rocky
Mountain Pacific
Coast North South Alaska
Mountain Coast
Region
Region
Net growth Removals Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
ovals 9
8
Figure 13-3. Net growth and removals of broadleaves in Figure 13-4. Potential and current growth and removals
the United
7 States, 1952–2006. on timber land by region, 2006. Net growth Removals
Net growth Removals 6
6 Potential growth Current growth Current removals
120 Potential growth Current growth Current removals 6,0
6 120 6,0
feet (billions)
(billions)
feet(billions)
5
5 100 4,0
year
100 4,0
peryear
4
(billions)
44
80
Cubicfeet
acreper
80
Cubic
2,0
3 2,0
peracre
Cubic
33
Cubic feet
60
60
feetper
2
22
Cubicfeet
40
40
1
Cubic
11
20
20
0 0
0
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
0
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
1952
1976
2006
South 0
Rocky Pacific North U.S.
South Rocky
Mountain Pacific
Coast North U.S.
Total
Rocky North
Pacific South Alaska South MountainRocky Coast Pacific North TotalAlaska
a Rocky
Mountain North
Pacific
Coast South Alaska Region
Mountain Coast
Mountain Coast Region
Region Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis
Region
Region
II–40 Potential growth Current growth Current removals National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
East West
ovals 120 East West 6,000
6,000
s)
)
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
ka North South Rocky Pacific Alaska
Mountain Coast
Region
Figure 13-5. Removals of growing stock for major for- harvested medicinal plant in terms of dry weight (tons). The
est products, 1952, 1976, and 2006. 2005 reported wild harvest of saw palmetto berries reached
movals
6,000
East West 2,893 tons—nearly double the 2004 reported volume. AHPA
attributes the increase to fluctuating berry prices and supplies
4,000 (AHPA 2004 to 2005). The top six primary commodities

in terms of harvest volume following saw palmetto include
cascara bark (Frangula purshiana), slippery elm bark (Ulmus
2,000
rubra), black cohosh root (Actaea racemosa), Echinacea spp.
herbs and roots, goldenseal leaves and roots (Hydrastis canaden-
0
1952 1976 2006 1952 1976 2006 sis), and wild yam tubers (Dioscorea villosa) (fig. 14-1).
Sawlogs/veneer
Pulpwood/composite
Product type Food and Forage Plants—The Forest Service and the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) keep records of permits and
contracts issued for harvests on their respective land, and
.
al Indicator 2.14. Annual Harvest of Nonwood provide some insight into harvest quantities. Contract and
permit data are based on approximations only, because they
Forest Products represent the volume of permitted harvest rather than actual
harvest. In addition, based on the proportion of public to
What is the indicator and why is it important? private land in the United States, we make the assumption
This indicator measures harvest levels of nonwood forest that harvests on National Forest System (NFS) lands probably
products (NWFPs). NWFPs include medicinal plants, food and represent about 20 to 30 percent of total national supply,
forage, floral and horticultural products, resins and oils, arts although harvests on BLM land probably represent between
and crafts materials, and game animals. As demand for these 2 to 15 percent of the total national supply (Susan Alexander,
products grows, it becomes increasingly important to monitor Forest Economist Forest Service Region 6, personal com-
the removal of products from forests, and the effects of their re- munication, 2009). Approximately 1.6 million pounds and an
moval on the viability of current and future forest ecosystems. additional 250 bushels of edible fruits, nuts, berries, and sap
Lack of management of NWFPs may result in negative effects were permitted for harvest on NFS land in 2007; nearly double
to species diversity, ecosystem dynamics, cultural practices, the quantity permitted for harvest on public land in 1998 (fig.
and other ecological, economic, and social frameworks. 14-2a). Permitted harvests of edible plants on public lands were
highest in the Pacific Coast, at 1.4 million pounds, or about
What does the indicator show? 3 pounds for every 100 acres of public NFS and BLM forest
lands. Although data on the volume of NWFPs harvested on
Nonwood Forest Products run the gamut from pinecones to
private land are lacking, a 2006 survey of United States private
fur-bearing animals, so it is not currently feasible to measure a
forest landowners indicated that, of an estimated 10 million
total harvest for the United States across all categories or even
private landowners nationwide (excluding Alaska, Hawaii,
within an individual category. Instead, harvest levels are given
west Oklahoma, and west Texas), 10 percent collected edible
here for representative products of particular importance or
plants (Butler 2009).
interest ecologically, economically, or socially. Information on
additional products for which data are available can be found in Maple syrup represents a large NWFP industry in the North
the supporting technical document in the data report. Region. In 2007, 1.3 million gallons of maple syrup from
more than 7 million taps were produced in the United States
Medicinal Plants—17 of the 22 medicinal plants studied by the
(National Agricultural Staitistics Service 2007). Only a little
American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) in 2004 and
more than 10,000 (about one-half of 1 percent) of those taps
2005 were wild harvested. Harvests of medicinal plants occur
were permitted taps on public land. Maple production has
throughout the country, although the temperate forests of the
remained stable in the United States since 1998, and currently
Eastern United States supply larger quantities of medicinal
only a small proportion of the available resource is being used
plant species. Of the species recorded by AHPA (2004 to
for syrup production (Hansen et al., In Press).
2005), 16 occur in the South, 14 occur in the North, 10 occur in
the Rocky Mountain Region, and 2 occur on the Pacific Coast. Permits purchased on BLM and NFS land for forage plants
Not enough data were available to state with certainty which were included here even though some harvested grasses may
specific States within regions harvested particular medicinal occur outside areas defined as forest. Alfalfa, hay, and grass
species from wild (not wild cultivated) stock. According to permits were lumped together for this analysis, although some
AHPA, saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) fruit was the most grasses (e.g., beargrass) are also used for Arts, Crafts, and

Floral products. Permitted harvests of alfalfa, hay, and grass for Figure 14-1. Quantity of top six wild-harvested dried
forage and crafts use on public lands were highest in the Pacific plants (excluding saw palmetto) for 1999 to 2005 as
Coast Region, at more than 2,000 tons permitted. Permitted reported by the American Herbal Products Association
harvest quantities on public land have remained fairly stable (Voluntarily reported by survey respondents. American
since the late 1990 and early 2000s (fig. 14-2b). The spike in Herbal Products Association 2004 to 2005).
2004 is because of the sale of beargrass, which is typically used 180
in the arts industry. Much of the alfalfa, hay, and grass grown
on private land is considered an agricultural commodity rather 160
180
180
than a NWFP, and is therefore outside the scope of this report.
140
Christmas
160160 trees—According to the National Christmas Tree
Association (NCTA), 25 to 50 million live trees are sold yearly
120
in the
140 United States (NCTA, 2005). The overwhelming major-
140
Harvest (U.S. tons)

ity of Christmas trees sold in lots or stores come from farms
100
where
120120trees are planted, grown, harvested, and replanted just as
any other agricultural crop, therefore it is difficult to separate
Harvest (U.S. tons)
Harvest (U.S. tons)
80
out100
trees
100 wild harvested for use as Christmas trees from trees
commercially grown for that purpose. A small proportion
60
of live
8080trees are harvested from public land, yearly. Permits
issued on national forest lands for Christmas tree harvest
40
have60declined
60 steadily since 1998. In 2006, a little more than
50,000 permits and contracts were issued for Christmas tree
20
collection—a
4040 20-percent increase from 2005, but a 71-percent
decrease from 1998. Permitted Christmas tree harvests have
0
declined
2020 on BLM land, also. The number of Christmas trees 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
harvested on BLM land decreased from 27,709 trees in 1998 to Year
13,8660 0trees in 2007. Most of the wild-harvest Christmas trees Frangula purshiana (cascara)
1999
1999 2000
2000 2001
2001 2002
coming from publicly owned land2002 2003
2003 2004
are harvested in2004 2005
2005
the Pacific Ulmus rubra (slippery elm
Year
Year Actaea racemosa (black cohosh)
Coast and Rocky Mountain Regions. Echinacea spp.
Frangula
Frangulapurshiana
purshiana (cascara)
(cascara)
Ulmus
Ulmusrubra
rubra (slippery
(slippery elmelm Hydrastis canadensisi (goldenseal)
Actaea
Actaearacemosa
racemosa (black
(black cohosh)
cohosh) Dioscorea villosa (wild yam)
Echinacea
Echinacea spp.spp.
Hydrastis
Hydrastis canadensisi
canadensisi (goldenseal)
(goldenseal)
Figure 14-2a. Quantity of edible
Dioscorea
Dioscorea villosa
villosafruits,
(wild
(wildyam) nuts, berries,
yam) Figure 14-2b. Quantity of grass, hay, and alfalfa
2,000 20,000
and sap permitted for harvest on National Forest System permitted for harvest on National Forest System and
and Bureau of Land Management land by year. Bureau of Land Management land by year.
2,000
2,000 1,600
20,000
20,000 16,000
Pounds (thousands)
1,600
1,600 1,200
16,000
16,000 12,000
U.S. tons
Pounds (thousands)
Pounds (thousands)
1,200
1,200 12,000800
12,000 8,000
U.S. tons
U.S. tons
800
800 8,000400
8,000 4,000
400
400 4,000 0
4,000 0
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
99
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
00 00 Year
1998
98
1999
99
2000
00
2001
01
2002
02
2003
03
2004
04
2005
05
2006
06
2007
07
1999
99
2000
00
2001
01
2002
02
2003
03
2004
04
2005
05
2006
06
2007
07
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Year Year
Year
Source: USDA Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Source: USDA Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management Land Management

Arts, Crafts, and Floral—Permitted harvests quantities of arts, What has changed since 2003?
crafts, and floral products on public lands totaled more than
The availability of a wider range of data sets represents the
622,000 tons in 2007. Foliage, limbs, and boughs comprised
most significant change since the 2003 sustainability report.
the largest product category of removals by weight in tons.
Based on the available data, nonwood forest products continue
Most of the permitted harvests occurred in the Pacific Coast
to be in demand, although the cultivation of some resources
and Rocky Mountain Regions. An estimated 727,000 private
(for example, Christmas Tree farms) may be replacing the wild
landowners also collect NWFPs from their own properties for
harvesting of select products. Although we now have the data
decorative use, according to 2006 surveys, although the volume
necessary to track some harvest levels on public land, and some
of their harvests is unknown (Butler 2009).
information about use on private land, we still lack the ability
to determine the level of harvest that could be considered
sustainable.

Criterion 3
Maintenance of Ecosystem Health and Vitality
What is this criterion and why is it important? extent that exotic species, air pollution, or diseases threaten the
forests, socioeconomic values are also threatened.
Ecosystem health depends on the functionality of natural,
nondegraded ecosystem components and processes. The
underlying premise is that forest species and ecosystems have What has changed since 2003?
evolved to function within particular environmental conditions The data––The indicators in this criterion have benefited from
determined largely by geological and climatic forces. Humans, data improvements resulting from ongoing survey efforts
meanwhile, have historically (and prehistorically) adapted their undertaken by the Forest Service’s Forest Health Protection
economic and social activities to environmental conditions and program.
to the resulting ecological processes. Substantial modification
The indicator––The following table summarizes the revisions.
of environmental conditions therefore threatens species’
Indicator reference numbers for 2003 and 2010 are provided to
adaptive capacities, ecosystems’ functional capacities, and
assist in comparisons with the previous report. A more detailed
associated human economies and societies. For example, many
rationale for the revisions may be found at http://www.rinya.
local and regional U.S. economies depend on forests. To the
maff.go.jp/mpci/meetings/18_e.htm.
Criterion 3. Maintenance of Ecosystem Health and Vitality.

2003 2010
Reference Reference
15 Area and percent of forest affected by processes or Merge biotic components of 3.15 Area and percent of forest affected by biotic
agents beyond the range of historic variation 2003 indicators and change processes and agents (e.g., insects, disease,
“historic variation” to “reference invasive alien species) beyond reference
conditions” conditions
16 Area and percent of forest land subjected to levels of Merge abiotic components of 3.16 Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic
specific air pollutants (e.g., sulfates, nitrate, ozone) or 2003 indicators and change agents (e.g., fire, storm, land clearance)
ultraviolet that may cause negative effects on the forest “historic variation” to “reference beyond reference conditions
ecosystem conditions”
17 Area and percent of forest land with diminished biologi- See above
cal components indicative of changes in fundamental
ecological processes (e.g., soil nutrient cycling, seed
dispersion, pollination) and/or ecological continuity
(monitoring of functionally important species, such as
fungi, arboreal epiphytes, nematodes, beetles, wasps)

Indicator 3.15. Area and Percent of Forest Forest health damage detection (including both aerial and
ground methods) results presented in this report cover a high
Affected by Biotic Processes and Agents proportion but not all of the total forested area. Annual aerial
(e.g., Insects, Disease, Invasive Alien detection surveys cover approximately 70 and 20 percent of the
Species) Beyond Reference Condition total forested area in the lower 48 States and Alaska respec-
tively. Consequently, the departure from reference conditions
What is the indicator and why is it important? may be underestimated.
Observed activity and effects from key biotic agents and
processes measured by Indicator 15 show deterioration in forest What has changed since 2003?
ecosystem health and vitality and decline in forest sustain- Annual mortality estimates within the past decade peaked in
ability. The “reference condition” is defined as the previous 2003 (fig. 15-4) then declined somewhat during subsequent
reporting period (1997 to 2002) used in the National Report on years. The overall trend continues to increase, however. (A
Sustainable Forests—2003. Current analysis of these agents similar trend is evident for Alaska—see data report for details.)
and processes, systematically measured at regular intervals and Mortality within any given year during the current period has
contrasted with the reference condition provides information not dropped below any given year during the reference period
in support of practical forest health planning and management. for the lower 48 States. Within the lower 48 States cumulative
The indicator is based on primary collection of insect and total forested area with mortality has increased to 37 million
disease mortality and defoliation data (mainly through aerial acres, compared to the reference condition of 12 million acres.
survey) that are augmented by modeling and analysis tech- Bark beetle, engraver beetle, gypsy moth-caused mortality, and
niques. The methodology is repeatable, and, with a growing mortality in the pinyon-juniper type because of complex factors,
database, increasingly reliable. are leading contributors to increased mortality rates. Areas
affected by root disease are documented as decreasing (see data
What does the indicator show? report); however, it should be noted that currently reported insect-
caused mortality often includes insect and disease complexes,
Figure 15-1 shows areas of predicted risk of disturbance by
so disease acreage is probably higher than recorded. Cumulative
biotic agents; risk is defined as 25 percent loss of standing
total forested area with defoliation has decreased by approxi-
volume over the next 15 years. Figure 15-2 shows areas with
mately 60 percent compared to reference conditions (see data
broadscale forest decline and tree mortality detected for this
report). Some of this decrease is attributable to gypsy moth
indicator during the past 5 years. Recently mapped effects show
suppression and eradication efforts and repeated defoliation
a three-fold increase in readily detectable damage, relative to
events, moving those areas into the mortality category. The cu-
the reference period, representing a significant departure from
mulative total forested area with mortality and defoliation since
reference condition, deterioration in forest ecosystem health,
2003 is approximately 50 million acres or 8 percent of the total
and a threat to forest sustainability (fig. 15-3).
hardwood and conifer forested area (considering all agents, not
Within the broad context of this cursory report, evidence restricted to those specifically addressed in this report).
that biotic processes and agents are significantly out of range
lies in what is directly observed and what is inferred (by Do important regional differences exist?
extrapolating these results to account for understory effects not Cumulative effects from both native and nonnative pests are
readily observed and to areas not regularly monitored, and by particularly evident at regional scales. Important regional
predicting risk into the future). Not described in detail within effects from specific agents upon local ecosystems are often
this report, yet detected and reportable at finer resolution are masked when these data are presented nationally.
localized departures from reference condition. As predicted
by risk modeling, and confirmed by site specific observations, Nonnative invasive plants, insects, and diseases include:
actual effects at local or regional levels are often extreme. sudden oak death and Port-Orford cedar root disease in the
West; gypsy moth (fig. 15-5), hemlock woolly adelgid, sirex
Overall, the indicator shows a continuing and increasing trend woodwasp, and emerald ash borer in the Northeast; salt-cedar
in forest decline. Spikes in tree mortality during the reporting in the Southwest, chestnut blight and butternut canker in the
period are largely because of a combination of high stand density East; white pine blister rust, Dutch elm disease, tree-of-heaven,
in unmanaged forests and drought, which both increase the likeli- spotted knapweed and more. These often become established
hood of insect outbreaks. Cumulative effects of insects, disease and readily spread within forested regions currently out of the
and a complex of other environmental factors are occurring range of natural variability. For example, stands becoming
within previously surveyed areas and expanding into new areas. dominated by tanoak because of a variety of factors (shade

tolerant dominance resulting from fire exclusion, absence of Unique to Alaska is the issue of yellow cedar decline. The lead-
harvest practices that increase age and species diversity, and so ing cause of yellow cedar decline appears to be freeze injuries
on) provide optimum conditions for the pathogen responsible to roots because of low snow pack. Cumulative acreage totals
for sudden oak death to become established and spread. show45a 24-fold increase in yellow cedar decline over reference
condition.
Native pest activity similarly threatens sustainability by af- 40
Mortality in acres (millions)

fecting normal tree species distribution and the overall number Monitoring
35 regional effects is critical to early detection to
and extent of live trees at regional scales. Examples include an apply management strategies for prevention and control within
30
insect complex in southern California in 2003, spruce beetles (1) affected
25 areas, (2) areas currently in a predisposed condition,
on Douglas-firs in the Northwest, and mountain pine beetle in and (3)
20 areas for which, without management, sustainability
the Rocky Mountains. will soon
15 be at risk.
10
Figure 15-1. Predicted insect and disease risk equals Figure5
15-4. Survey results for mortality and flown insect
58 million acres (red) based on national 2006 composite. and disease survey areas within the lower 48 States;
0
Legend includes areas with pinyon, oak, and aspen
1997–2002 mortality,
2003–2007
Risk of mortality
Water select beetles, and root diseases for other tree species
(reporting area flown began in 1999).
14 500
450
12
400
Area flown in acres (millions)

10 350
300
8
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection 250
6
200
Figure 15-2. Areas with mortality mapped from
2003–2007. 4 150
Legend 100
Mortality 2
50
0 0
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Mortality IDS areas
IDS = Insect and Disease Survey
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection
Figure 15-5. Gypsy moth effects and quarantine

progression, 1987–2008; although geographic distribu-
tion varies, similar displays are available for counties
Figure 15-3. Cumulative total area with mortality for confirmed with sudden oak death, emerald ash borer,
select agents in the lower 48 States (cumulative effects hemlock wooly adelgid, and sirex woodwasp).
occur where mortality continues in previously mapped
areas and expands into new areas).
45
40
35
30
25
20
Gypsy Moth
15 Not found
1987
10
1997
5 2002
2007
0 2008
1997–2002 2003–2007
National
14 Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 500 II–47
450
12
Indicator 3.16. Area and Percent of Forest Drought can be measured by moisture deficit over a given
time period. Perennial vegetation is affected by multiseasonal
Affected by Abiotic Agents (e.g., Fire, Storm, deficits. Figure 16-2 illustrates the predisposing drought condi-
and Land Clearance) Beyond Reference tions for the current period. Weather-related damage, caused by
Conditions drought, flood, ice, hail, lightning, wind, and avalanche agents,
is represented only in areas that have been aerial surveyed and,
What is the indicator and why is it important? thus, may not represent all of the area affected by an agent.
Forest Service’s Aerial Survey Program measured 1.2 million
Various abiotic agents, both natural and human-induced, can
acres of mortality attributable to drought (0.2 percent of the
change forest structure and species composition. Where such
forested area) and an additional 0.5 million acres were affected
change goes beyond some critical threshold, forest ecosystem
by other weather-related events during the of 2003-to-2007
health and vitality may be significantly altered, and its ability
to recover from disturbance is reduced or lost, often meaning
Figure 16-1. Total acreage burned.
a reduction or loss of benefits associated with that forest
Annual and 5-year acreage burned—U.S.—all lands
ecosystem. Monitoring the area and percent of forests affected 60
by abiotic agents beyond reference conditions may provide
information needed in the formulation of management strate- 50

gies to mitigate risk.
40
What does the indicator show? 30
Of the abiotic agents that affect forested ecosystems, five were 20

selected that have a dominant impact—fire, weather, pollution,
land development, and climate change. Given the breadth of 10
disturbance agents, it was not possible to treat any one of them 0

in detail. Extended details are available in the supporting data
16
22
28
34
40
46
52
58
64
70
76
82
88
94
00
06
report.
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Annual 5-year moving average
Fire is the most dominant abiotic agent in terms of area affected
across the landscape, but is also an integral part of many forested
ecosystems. Between 1945 and 2000, fire suppression substantially Table 16-1. Acreage burned (thousands).
reduced annual acreage burned. Since 2000, an increase in area Fire 1998–2002 2003–2007
Total Burned Area—United States––All Lands 25,105 39,950
burned has occurred, although it has not yet reached the levels
Forested lands: 13,131
recorded between 1925 and 1960. Figure 16-1 summarizes acre- High severity 2,724
age burned for all land cover types. Estimates of total affected Moderate severity 3,321
area indicate a significant increase in fire damage in recent Low severity/other 7,086
Percent with high or moderate severity 46%
years, with the cumulative area affected for the 2003-to-2007
(40 million acres) period representing an increase of 1.5 times
the area affected in the 1998-to-2002 period (25 million acres). Figure 16-2. Drought conditions, 5-year period.
Drought condition within U.S. forested areas, 2003–2007
Forested lands accounted for 13.1 million acres of the burned
area, equaling approximately 1.7 percent of all forest land.
Although a significant increase in the extent of forest fires has
occurred, concern over burn severity has prompted efforts to
map the severity of large fires. Although complete data for
the reference period is currently being developed, table 16-1
summarizes the total acreage burned for all forested lands for
the current period.
Surplus
Climate change may manifest itself with prolonged or more
Normal
frequent drought. Drought-caused tree mortality is immediately Mild deficit
Moderate deficit
noticeable; however, changes in productivity and regeneration Severe deficit
success of species within their historic range would not be Extreme deficit
discernable at the 5-year reference period. Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection

period (0.1 percent of the forested area). All weather related In 2000, 31 million forested acres existed in urban and subur-
damage is illustrated in figure 16-3. ban (less than 1.68 acres per residential housing unit) areas in
the coterminous USA, but slightly more than seven times that
Pollution effects on forests are indicated by Critical Acid
(226 million acres) existed in exurban areas (between 1.68 and
Loading (CAL), which incorporates SO4 and NO3 and their
39.98 acres per residential housing unit). From 1980 to 2000,
relationship with soil properties. From 1994 to 2000, 74 million
the developed footprint has grown from 10.1 to 13.3 percent of
acres, or 17 percent of U.S. forest soils exceeded their CAL
forest land, roughly by 1.6 percent per year. This rate of land
by more than 98.4 equivalents per acre per year. These areas
development outpaced the population growth rate (1.18 percent
are predominately located in the Northeastern United States
per year) by 25 percent. Based on model forecasts, urban and
(McNulty et al. 2007; see also Indicator 19). Surface ozone
suburban housing densities will expand 2.2 percent by 2020,
(O3) is also an important air pollutant that affects vegetation.
whereas exurban development on forest land will expand by
No evidence exists linking Forest Health Monitoring ozone
14.3 percent (Theobald 2005).
bioindicator response data to a specific tree health problem
or regional decline. Nevertheless, mapped data demonstrate
that concentrations of plant damaging ozone air pollution are What has changed since 2003?
widespread in parts of the United States (Coulston 2005). For burned area, the current period shows an increase over the
reference period (table 16-2); however, both of these periods
are substantially less than the historic 5-year period maximum
Figure 16-3. Surveyed weather damage.
that occurred in the late 1920s, as illustrated in figure 16-1.
Abiotic forest damage areas, 2003–2007
Weather-related damage has increased during the past 5-year
period (788,429 acres versus 1,760,885 acres) with drought
exhibiting the largest proportion in acreage affected. Land clearing
for urbanization continues to expand by 1.6 percent per year.

Burn severity data spanning from 1984 to 2007 has been
tabulated for the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Regions. Over
the past 24 years, the proportion of moderate and high burn
severity on forested lands has increased from a proportion of
Insect and Disease Survey
abiotic damage 31 to 50 percent of the burned forested area (table 16-2). Burn
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection severity for the Southern Region over the reference and current
periods has declined (table 16-3).
Table 16-2. Burn severity (acres in thousands).

Fire 1983–1987 1988–1992 1993–1997 1998–2002 2003–2007
Burned Area––United States All Lands 10,535 16,482 16,635 25,105 39,950
Burn severity on forested lands––Western Region
High 140 311 187 926 1,702
Moderate 211 229 244 929 1,476
Other 771 970 985 2,267 3,234
Percent with high or moderate severity 31% 36% 30% 45% 50%
Table 16-3. Burn severity (acres in thousands).

Burn Severity on Forested Lands––Southern Region
1998–2002 2003–2007
High 7 25
Moderate 31 144
Other 186 1,235
Percent with high or moderate severity 17% 12%

Criterion 4
Conservation and Maintenance of

Soil and Water Resources
What is this criterion and why is it important? ers (NASF) survey. The FIA Soil Quality Indicator database
used for Indicator 4.19 is greatly expanded since 2003. A
Soil and water are primary stocks of natural capital in all
different database (EPA National Assessment Database) than
terrestrial ecosystems. They constitute the foundation for the
that used in the 2003 report has been used for Indicator 4.21 in
human economy and for the economy of nature with its birds,
this report.
mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants.
Forest ecosystems differ from other types of ecosystems in The indicators––The following table summarizes the revisions.
that the soil and water resources support the growth of trees Indicator reference numbers for 2003 and 2010 are provided to
(which themselves constitute a form of natural capital). The assist in comparisons with the previous report. A more detailed
amount of soil and water and their characteristics determine the rationale for the revisions may be found at http://www.rinya.
capacity of ecosystems to sustain forests, forest economies, and maff.go.jp/mpci/meetings/18_e.htm.
forest-dependent societies.
The 2003 soils Indicators 18, 21, 22, and 25 were merged into
the new soil conditions Indicator 4.19. The 2003 water Indicators
What has changed since 2003? 20, 23, and 24 were merged into the new water quality Indicator
The data––Indicator 4.17 was not reported in the 2003 report. 4.21. New Indicators 4.18 and 4.20 report on the extent that
Data for this indicator in the 2010 report were taken from the best management practices are followed to protect soil and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Assessment water resources. New Indicators 4.19 and 4.21 report on the
Database. Indicators 4.18 and 4.20 are new in this report and actual condition of soil and water quality on forested lands.
data were taken from the National Association of State Forest-
Criterion 4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources (1 of 2).

2003 2010
Reference Reference
Protective Function
19 Area and percent of forest land managed primarily Wording change 4.17 Area and percent of forest whose
for protective functions (e.g., watersheds, flood designation or land management focus is
protection, avalanche protection, and riparian zones) the protection of soil or water resources
Soil
18 Area and percent of forest land with significant soil Merge to new Indicator 4.19
erosion
21 Area and percent of forest land with significantly Merge to new Indicator 4.19
diminished soil organic matter and changes in other
soil chemical properties
22 Area and percent of forest land with significant Merge to new Indicator 4.19
compaction or change in soil physical properties
resulting from human activities
25 Area and percent of forest land experiencing an Merge to new Indicator 4.19
accumulation of persistent toxic substances
NEW 4.18 Proportion of forest management activities
that meet best management practices or other
relevant legislation to protect soil resources
NEW 4.19 Area and percent of forest land with significant
soil degradation

Criterion 4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources (2 of 2).
2003 2010
Reference Reference
Water
20 Percent of stream kilometers in forested catchments Merge concept to new Indicator 4.21
in which stream flow and timing have deviated
significantly from the historic range of variation
23 Percent of water bodies in forest areas (e.g., stream Merge concept to new Indicator 4.21
kilometers, lake hectares) with significant variance
of biological diversity from the historic range of
variability
24 Percent of water bodies in forest areas (e.g., stream Merge concept to new Indicator 4.21
kilometers, lake hectares) with significant variation
from the historic range of variability in pH, dissolved
oxygen, levels of chemicals (electrical conductivity),
sedimentation, or temperature change
NEW 4.20 Proportion of forest management activities
that meet best management practices, or
other relevant legislation, to protect water-
related resources
NEW 4.21 Area and percent of water bodies, or stream
length, in forest areas with significant change
in physical, chemical, or biological properties
from reference conditions
Indicator 4.17. Area and Percent of Forest public water supplies is unknown but will be directly propor-
tional to the reported miles of rivers and streams and acres of
Whose Designation or Land Management lakes, ponds, and reservoirs.
Focus Is the Protection of Soil and Water
In the United States, 3,589,765 miles of rivers and streams
Resources
were reported by the States in the 2006 National Assessment
Database (table 17-1). American Samoa, Northern Mariana
What is the indicator and why is it important? Islands, Pacific Trust Territories, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
This indicator provides a measure of the extent to which soil provided no data. Of these, 822,340 miles have been assessed
and water resources in forested areas are protected by legisla- (22.9 percent of total). A total of 187,424 miles (5.2 percent of
tive or administrative designation or where their protection is total) have been designated by the States as public water sup-
the primary management focus. Such designations or manage- plies and, thus, meet Indicator 17-protection criterion. Thirteen
ment protections guard against degradation of soil resources, States and territories without an explicit public water supply
maintain soil quality, and prevent impairment of water supplies or overall use designation include Florida, Hawaii, Maryland,
intended for public consumption. Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Wisconsin, District
of Columbia, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands,
Indicator 4.17 is also related to Indicators 18 and 20, which
Pacific Trust Territories, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Thus,
report on the overall use of forestry best management practices
waters in those areas are not included in the protected total.
to protect soil and water resources. Forestry best management
practices include a set of preventative measures designed to In the United States, 42,003,669 acres of lakes, ponds, and
control or reduce movement of sediment, nutrients, pesticides, reservoirs were reported by the States in the 2006 National
or other pollutants from soils to receiving water bodies. Assessment Database (table 17-1). Hawaii, American Samoa,
Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Trust Territories, and the
What does the indicator show? U.S. Virgin Islands provided no data. Of the reported acres,
Every 2 years, States submit water quality reports to EPA 16,610,248 acres have been assessed (39.5 percent of total). A
under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. The National total of 7,801,087 acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs (18.6
Assessment Database summarizes the data submitted by the percent of total) have been designated as public water supplies.
States (http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index.html). States Eight States and territories did not assess any lakes, ponds, or
designate water uses and assess water quality attainment in the reservoirs (Arkansas, Hawaii, Ohio, Pennsylvania, American
National Assessment Database. Waters designated by the States Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Trust Territories,
as public water supplies are protected waters and are managed and the U.S. Virgin Islands). These States and territories plus
to protect soil and water resources in their watersheds. The total 10 additional States (Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
size of the watersheds containing assessed waters designated as Mississippi, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Wisconsin,

Table 17-1. Total estimated waters reported by States, total assessed waters, and condition of U.S. rivers/streams
and lakes/ponds/reservoirs designated as public water supply use (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006
National Assessment Database. http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index.html).
Assessed Percent of
Type of Estimated Total Percent of Waters Total Waters
Good Threatened Impaired
Water Total Waters in Waters Total Waters Designated as Designated as
(percent) (percent) (percent)
Body United States Assessed Assessed Public Water Public Water
Supply Supply
Rivers/streams (miles) 3,589,765 822,340 22.9 187,424 5.2 79.6 1.1 19.3
Lakes/ponds/reservoirs (acres) 42,003,669 16,610,248 39.5 7,801,087 18.6 78.6 1.9 19.5
and Wyoming), and the District of Columbia do not have The forested parts of hydrologic unit codes are known, but
separate public water supply use or overall use designations, the necessary overlay of water use designation from the EPA
and did not contribute to the total acreage. database and the forest land use database for each watershed
was not available for this report.
Approximately 79.6 percent of the rivers and streams and
78.6 percent of the lakes, ponds, and reservoirs designated as
public water supplies have attained good water quality status Indicator 4.18. Proportion of Forest
(table 17-1). Management Activities That Meet Best
In addition to the specific protections associated with watershed Management Practices or Other Relevant
management for public water supply, it should be noted that Legislation To Protect Soil Resources
forest management regulations and practice involve soil and
watershed protection measures. These involve a variety of What is the indicator and why is it important?
Federal, State, and local regulations and voluntary stewardship
Forestry best management practices (BMPs) to protect soil
practices, and they apply to varying degrees across different
resources are a set of preventive measures designed to control
locations and across different forest ownerships.
soil erosion caused by forest management activities. They are
designed not only to avoid excessive loss of productive soils
What has changed since 2003? from the landscape but also to protect receiving water bodies
No data were reported for this indicator in the previous report. from excess sediment loads from accelerated erosion.
Are there important regional differences? What does the indicator show?
Because many key States did not report any data and many Indicator 4.18 is closely related to Indicator 4.20. Protection
States do not have a separate use designation for public water of soil resources leads to protection of water resources. The
supplies, it is not possible to determine whether regional differ- best way to protect water bodies from excess sedimentation
ences exist in designation of protected water resources. Also, is to protect the soil resource from excess loss via accelerated
most water sources in each State have yet to be assessed. erosion caused by unsound forest management. Because BMPs
were developed and are used to protect water resources, an
Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at assessment of BMPs to protect water resources automatically
this time? provides an assessment for protecting soil resources. Therefore,
this indicator is reported under Indicator 4.20: Proportion
This indicator implies that data will be reported in terms of
of forest management activities that meet best management
forested land areas. The public database that most directly
practices, or other relevant legislation, to protect water related
addresses this indicator, however, collects and reports data in
resources such as riparian zones, water quality, quantity, and
terms of miles of streams and rivers and acres of lakes, ponds,
flow regulation.
and reservoirs. Although watershed land area is directly propor-
tional to the size of the water bodies within the watershed, the
forested portions of watersheds containing waters designated What has changed since 2003?
as public water supplies are unknown. Nevertheless, because This indicator did not exist in the 2003 report.
these are waters designated as public water supplies, they are
inherently protected through forest management and forest land Are there important regional differences?
will be the major land use classification in those watersheds.
See brief for Indicator 4.20.

Indicator 4.19. Area and Percent of Forest subjected to additional environmental stressors and may be more
prone to accelerated soil degradation if forest cover is lost.
Land With Significant Soil Degradation
Nutrient-poor and acid forest soil conditions are found
What is the indicator and why is it important? throughout the United States, but acidic soils with low Ca and
high Al levels are concentrated in the Northeast and South,
Underlying soil conditions directly control forest productivity
primarily in the Appalachian regions (table 19-2). The most
and health. Soil conditions, as described by various physical
serious soil-related emerging forest health threat is increasing
and chemical properties, determine overall soil quality.
soil acidity and associated decreasing soil Ca reserves along
Changes in soil conditions, as a result of disturbances or land
with increasing potentially toxic levels of exchangeable Al.
use activities, may adversely affect forest productivity and
This soil condition is strongly related to atmospheric acid
health. The goal of this indicator is to quantify changes in
deposition (Driscoll et al. 2001).
soil quality resulting from climate changes, disturbances, or
land use activities. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
Soil Quality Indicator was developed to assess the condition What has changed since 2003?
and trend of soil quality on all U.S. forest lands and therefore Because of changes to the Soil Quality Indicator and the more
directly meets this indicator goal. limited data set collected in 2003, direct comparisons between
then and now are, for the most part, not possible. The 2003
What does the indicator show? report was based on only 2 years of FIA data. In the 2003
report, 1.6 percent of the plots (1999 to 2000) had evidence of
Estimates of bare soil on FIA plots provide an indirect or sur-
compaction on more than one-half of the plot area. With 6,001
rogate measure of soil erosion potential, which is also related
plots assessed from 1999 through 2005, that percentage has
to precipitation amounts and distribution, slope steepness
increased to just 2 percent of all plots. This increase is probably
and length, soil texture, and types of disturbances (Elliot et
attributable to the assessment of a much wider geographic area
al. 2000). Estimates of plot area showing evidences of soil
of the United States.
compaction indicate the areal extent of disturbances that may
change the physical properties of soils. This indicator estimates
only the areal extent of visual evidences of compaction and Are there important regional differences?
does not measure compaction intensity. The affect of soil The interior West tends to have more bare soil in forested areas
compaction on forest productivity is complex and depends on than other regions, and is likely the result of more open tree
numerous factors, including soil texture, moisture content, and canopies and less forest floor accumulation of organic matter
vegetation (Powers et al. 2005). during the sustained drought of recent years. The extent of
bare soil can fluctuate during a growing season and depends
Most FIA plots have at least some bare soil, but only a very
on physiographic location and plant communities and their
small percentage of plots (0.4 to 5.5 percent) have bare soil
condition. The North Central Region tends to have more
covering more than one-half the plot area (table 19-1). These
areas with evidence of soil compaction. The South has more
plots are at highest risk of accelerated soil erosion, but cover
highly weathered soils with lower organic matter and nutrients
only a very small fraction of all forested lands. Only 0.3 to 4.7
than other regions and the South and Northeast have a large
percent of all plots show evidences of compaction on more than
percentage of strongly acidic soils with low Ca and high Al
one-half the plot area (table 19-1). Thus, soil compaction is not
levels. The data in table 19-2 indicate a developing soils-related
a widespread problem on forested lands and is largely confined
forest health threat. Continued loss of Ca and increases in Al
to trails and forest harvest operations.
throughout the northern and southern Appalachian Mountains
Soils develop in response to several interacting factors: parent puts Ca-sensitive tree species at risk of decline and mortality.
material, topography (landscape position), organisms, climate, Although southern forests are adapted to soil conditions in that
and time. In general, more highly weathered soils have lower region, the already low organic matter and nutrient status of
levels of organic matter and nutrients and develop in warmer areas these soils indicates that these forests may be more susceptible
with ample precipitation. Over time, forests adapt to these local to influences from additional stressors (e.g., industrial inputs,
soil conditions, but forests developed on low productivity soils drought, insects, and disease).
may have a higher risk of soil-related forest health decline when

Table 19-1. Percent of Forest Inventory and Analysis P3 plots assessed from 1999 through 2005 with bare soil on
more than 50 percent of plot area and showing evidences of compaction on more than 50 percent of plot area.
Northeasta North Central South Interior West Pacific West United States
Total plots (N) 1,716 1,424 857 1,461 543 6,001
Soil condition Percent of plots
Bare soil greater than 50% of plot area 0.4 1.6 1.6 5.5 1.8 2.2
Compaction greater than 50% of plot area 1.3 4.7 1.9 0.3 1.8 2.0
a
Northeast: CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WV; North Central: IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD, WI; South: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS,
NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA; Interior West: AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, UT, WY; Pacific West: AK, CA, HI, OR, WA; States in which the FIA Soil Quality Indicator is not yet
implemented: MS, OK, NM, AK, HI.
Table 19-2. Percent of Forest Inventory and Analysis P3 plots (2000–2005) by region and soil depth with selected
suboptimal soil conditions and with increased risk of soils-related forest health decline.
Northeastc North Central South Interior West Pacific West
0–10 cm 10–20 cm 0–10 cm 10–20 cm 0–10 cm 10–20 cm 0–10 cm 10–20 cm 0–10 cm 10–20 cm
Soil condition Percent of plots
Organic C less than 1% 1.4 15.0 4.3 33.9 15.3 62.4 19.4 34.6 8.0 18.0
Total N less than 0.1% 6.3 29.7 14.1 50.1 47.0 82.8 31.0 52.2 22.7 41.9
Water pH less than 4.0 25.7 8.6 3.0 1.2 5.9 2.5 0.1 0.0 1.6 1.0
Excha K less than 100 mg/kg 73.6 90.4 55.4 76.3 73.4 85.4 11.1 23.0 20.7 28.3
Exch Mg less than 50 mg/kg 58.3 73.2 19.9 35.3 45.9 61.6 6.3 10.0 17.9 28.3
Exch Ca less than 100 mg/kg 38.0 57.1 7.0 18.2 27.2 48.7 0.6 1.7 3.7 9.2
Exch Al greater than 100 mg/kg 73.7 73.0 23.2 27.1 30.9 35.2 6.8 7.6 20.0 21.6
Bray 1 P less than 15 mg/kg 81.7 83.8 63.8 67.7 83.8 89.2 39.3 53.4 31.3 41.5
Olsen P less than 10 mg/kg 34.8 60.0 24.9 52.8 87.9 92.6 47.9 63.5 29.2 45.4
SQIb less than 50% 33.2 52.5 10.3 31.4 39.7 69.7 6.5 14.4 5.4 14.3
a
Exch = 1 M NH Cl exchangeable.
4
b
SQI = soil quality index (less than 50 percent indicates increased risk of soil-related forest health decline).
c
Regions same as defined in table 1 previously.
Indicator 4.20. Proportion of Forest for silviculture. The fifth survey in the series was published in
2004 (NASF 2004). Responding to the survey were 45 States
Management Activities That Meet Best and two trust territories and the overall detailed results are tabu-
Management Practices, or Other Relevant lated in the survey report (NASF 2004). The term States in the
Legislation, To Protect Water-Related NASF report and the report for this indicator refers to States,
Resources Such as Riparian Zones, Water the District of Columbia, and trust territories. Development
of BMPs for silviculture has occurred in 43 States, although
Quality, Quantity, and Flow Regulation
4 States do not have silviculture BMPs (NASF 2004).
What is the indicator and why is it important? Twenty-seven States reported on overall rates of use of forestry
Forestry best management practices (BMPs) to protect water BMPs although 20 States responded unknown, nonapplicable,
resources are a set of preventative measures designed to control or did not respond to this survey question. Of the responding
or reduce movement of sediment, nutrients, pesticides, or other States, the median overall use of silvicultural BMPs is 91
pollutants from soils to receiving water bodies. When properly percent with a range of 25 to 100 percent (table 20-1). Best
implemented, forestry BMPs can prevent the impairment management practice categories include preharvest, stream
of water bodies from silvicultural practices and other forest management, logging roads, stream crossings, site preparation,
management activities. Because the protection of water quality chemical use, roads to bed, and wetlands.
primarily involves the management of soil conditions, the
information presented in this indicator can also be applied to What has changed since 2003?
Indicator 18, which assesses BMPs focused on soil protection. This indicator did not exist in the 2003 report.
What does the indicator show? Are there important regional differences?
The Water Resources Committee (WRC) of the National As- Reported overall BMPs use is slightly higher in the West and
sociation of State Foresters (NASF) conducts periodic surveys South than in the East.
of State nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control programs

Table 20-1. Overall rates of forestry best management practice use in 2004 by State and National Association of
State Foresters (NASF) regions.
NASF Northeastern Region NASF Southern Group NASF Western Council
Overall rate of Overall rate of Overall rate of
best management best management best management
State State State
practices use practices use practices use
(percent) (percent) (percent)
Connecticut NA Alabama 97 Alaska 92
District of Columbia NA Arkansas 89 Arizona NA
Delaware 99 Florida 97 California 95
Iowa 25–50 Georgia 90 Colorado 80
Illinois NA Kentucky NA Guam NA
Indiana ~80 Louisiana 93 Hawaii NA
Massachusetts 85 Mississippi 89 Idaho 92
Maryland NA North Carolina 83 Kansas NA
Maine 76 Oklahoma 90 Montana 95
Michigan NA Puerto Rico NA North Dakota 100
Minnesota NA South Carolina 94 Nebraska NA
Missouri Unknown Tennessee NA Nevada NA
New Hampshire NA Texas 92 New Mexico NA
New Jersey NA Virginia 91.4 Oregon 96
New York NA South Dakota NA
Ohio 80 Utah NA
Pennsylvania Unknown Washington NA
Rhode Island NA Wyoming 94
Vermont 70
Wisconsin 86
West Virginia NA
Northeast Region median 80 Southern Group median 91 Western Council median 95
NA = no response, no data available, or unknown.
Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at in physical, chemical, or biological properties can indicate
this time? effects of changing land use and management can be altered to
preserve water quality.
Information for this indicator is dependent on State-level
survey responses. Only 27 States provided responses that were
applicable in constructing the indicator. Furthermore, BMPs What does the indicator show?
are developed at the State level and may differ considerably Every 2 years, States submit water quality reports to the EPA
both in their specific requirements and in their overall level of under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. The National
protection. Assessment Database summarizes the data submitted by the
States (http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/ index.html). States
designate water uses and assess water quality attainment in
Indicator 4.21. Area and Percent of Water the National Assessment Database. States also determine the
Bodies or Stream Length in Forest Areas With principal sources of impairment for both linear water bodies
(rivers and streams) and area-based water bodies (lakes, ponds,
Significant Change in Physical, Chemical,
and reservoirs).
or Biological Properties From Reference
Conditions The States reported 3,589,765 miles of rivers and streams in the
2006 National Assessment Database. Of these, 822,340 miles
have been assessed for water quality attainment (22.9 percent
of total). Sixteen States (Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, California,
Water quality in forest ecosystems is controlled by climate Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio,
and hydrology, catchment geology, natural disturbances, land Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
management, and actual land use activities whether managed or Wisconsin) identified silvicultural activities as a source of
not. Water quality in undisturbed forested catchments can serve impairment for 23,722 miles of rivers and streams (2.9 percent
as important baseline references for water quality in catchments of total assessed miles—see table 21-1).
with varying land use and management activities. Trends

The various sources of impairment of rivers and streams identi- What has changed since 2003?
fied by the States were grouped into eight broad impairment
How this indicator is evaluated has changed since the 2003
source categories (table 21-1): (1) physical changes to the water
report. In 2003, water quality data were reported as the percent-
body, (2) crop production, (3) animal production and grazing,
age of counties with hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds
(4) forestry (including silviculture, forest roads, and fire),
with water quality parameters significantly different from other
(5) resource extraction, (6) municipal and industrial sources,
counties within each region. The 2003 report data could not be
(7) natural sources, and (8) unspecified or unknown sources.
unambiguously analyzed solely for forested areas. On the other
Of these eight broad sources of impairment, forestry-related
hand, States were able to identify silvicultural activities as a
activities impaired the fewest miles of rivers and streams (2.9
source of impairment for the National Assessment Database.
percent of total assessed). In contrast, all agricultural activities
Thus, it is not possible to directly compare the data in this
(crop and animal production, including grazing) impaired about
report with that from the 2003 report.
8 times as many miles (about 24 percent of total assessed).
A total of 42,003,669 acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs Are there important regional differences?
were reported by the States in the 2006 National Assessment Because many states do not specifically identify silviculture as
Database. Of these, 16,610,248 acres have been assessed for a source of water quality impairment, and because many waters
water quality attainment (39.5 percent of total). Just 11 States have yet to be assessed, it is not yet possible to determine
(Arizona, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, regional differences.
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia)
identified silvicultural activities as a source of impairment for
316,071 acres (0.8 percent of total acres, 1.9 percent of total
assessed acres, 1.8 percent of all impaired acres) (table 21-1). this time?
Many other sources of water quality impairment are identified
As in the case of rivers and streams, forestry-related activities in the National Assessment Database. Some of these such as
impaired the fewest acres of aerial water bodies (1.9 percent flow and habitat modification, sedimentation, riparian vegeta-
of total assessed). In contrast, all agricultural activities related tion removal, grazing effects, resource extraction, and others
to crop and animal production impaired about 8 times as much occur in forested areas. Unfortunately, other than silviculture,
water body acreage (about 15 percent of total assessed). the National Assessment Database does not separate sources
Table 21-1. Sources of water quality impairment for assessed U.S. rivers/streams and lakes/ponds/reservoirs. (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 2006 National Assessment Database. http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index.html).
Rivers/Streams Lakes/Ponds/Reservoirs
Source of Impairment*
Miles Percent of total assessed Acres Percent of total assessed
Physical changes 164,498 20.0 1,849,582 11.1
Crop production 114,849 14.0 1,988,175 12.0
Animal production 80,269 9.8 555,054 3.3
Forestry 23,727 2.9 316,071 1.9
Resource extraction 41,916 5.1 599,280 3.6
Municipal/industrial 205,673 25.0 6,048,322 36.4
Natural 40,743 5.0 1,354,245 8.2
Unspecified/unknown 125,308 15.2 4,551,991 27.4
Total assessed 822,340 16,610,248
Total United States 3,589,765 42,003,669
* Sources of impairment:
• Physical changes: hydromodification, flow regulation, dams and impoundments, water diversion, channelization, dredging, bank destabilization, habitat changes,
loss of wetlands and riparian areas, erosion, and sedimentation.
• Crop production: all agricultural sources related to irrigated and nonirrigated crop production.
• Animal production: all agricultural sources related to animal production, including confined animal feeding operations and upland and riparian grazing.
• Forestry: all silvicultural and forest industry activities, forest roads, and fire.
• Resource extraction: mineral resource development, mining, oil, gas, and coal production.
• Municipal and Industrial: all municipal, urban, and industrial point and nonpoint sources, including runoff; construction and development; and waste disposal.
• Natural: mineral deposits and ecosystem nutrient cycling.
• Unspecified or unknown: all unidentified or unknown point and nonpoint sources.

of impairment by land use. Thus, it is not possible to separate are identified, quantitative water quality data summarized
resource extraction impairments, for example, in forested areas by forested area across the entire United States are lacking.
from other land use classification areas. To fully report this indicator, quantitative water quality data
summarized by land and water use, vegetative cover, sources
Another problematic issue is sources of impairment may
and origins of impairments, and stressors and pollutants are
originate inside or outside of forested areas. Also, the
needed. A full integration of EPA assessment and USGS water
National Assessment Database does not indicate the degree
quality data by forested HUC would best meet the intent of the
of impairment. Some impairments may be transitory, others
indicator.
more permanent. Although individual stressors and pollutants

Criterion 5
Maintenance of Forest Contribution to

Global Carbon Cycles
More than any other criterion, this one reflects the fact that The data––Most of this criterion’s data continue to be based
forests exist within a context of the global environment and the on greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories compiled by the U.S.
world’s economic and social activities. Criterion 5 embodies a Environmental Protection Agency, forest inventories conducted
direct link between the environment and the economy, because by the Forest Service, surveys of electricity generation by the
carbon cycling concerns result from the fossil fuel combustion U.S. Department of Energy, and models and simulations of
that powers the human economy. The capacity of forests to carbon pools and fluxes based on said data sources.
sequester carbon may be—or may become—a primary factor
The indicators—The following table summarizes the revisions.
for determining the capacity of fossil fueled economies. The
Briefly, the forest ecosystem and product pools have been sepa-
global economy, in other words, may be a function not only of
rated into their own respective indicators, while a new indicator
the global environment but also, particularly, of the forested
focused on avoided fossil fuel emissions through forest biomass
environment.
use has been created. Indicator reference numbers for 2003 and
2010 are provided to assist in comparisons with the previous
report. A more detailed rationale for the revisions may be found
at http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mpci/meetings/18_e.htm.
Criterion 5. Maintenance of Forest Contribution to Global Carbon Cycles.

2003 2010
Reference Reference
26 Total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon Add fluxes, delete type and age 5.22 Total forest ecosystem carbon pools and
pool, and if appropriate, by forest type, age- fluxes
class, and successional stages
27 Contribution of forest ecosystems to the total DELETE
global carbon budget (standing biomass,
coarse woody debris, peat, and soil carbon
levels)
28 Contribution of forest products to the global Add fluxes, delete global context 5.23 Total forest product carbon pools and fluxes
carbon budget
NEW 5.24 Avoided fossil fuel carbon emissions by
using forest biomass for energy

Indicator 5.22. Total Forest Ecosystem with this information. Forest ecosystem carbon stocks in the
United States continue to represent a substantial carbon pool
Carbon Pools and Fluxes of more than 156,000 Tg CO2e (fig. 22-1), with live trees and
organic soil carbon levels accounting for most of this stock.
What is the indicator and why is it important? The forest carbon stock is equivalent to more than 25 years of
The United States emitted a gross 6.0 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions in the United States. The live tree carbon stock
CO2 in the year 2006. Because plants use carbon dioxide in the is concentrated on the West coast, Rocky Mountains, Ap-
photosynthesis process, forests provide a primary vehicle to palachian Mountains, and in other areas of the Eastern United
sequester carbon from the atmosphere. During this process, the States (fig. 22-2).
carbon becomes part of the plant mass. Once forest biomass
In terms of annual changes or carbon flux, both above- and
dies, carbon remains in the forest ecosystem and cycles through
below-ground forest ecosystem living biomass components
standing dead trees, downed dead wood, duff and litter, and
account for most of annual carbon sequestration (fig. 22-3).
finally soil carbon pools. Thus, managing forest ecosystems
These rates of sequestration have remained rather static since
to sequester carbon reduces the net amount of carbon dioxide
2000. The spatial distribution of forest sequestration is evenly
accumulating in the atmosphere. Less carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere may help reduce the possibility and extent of
human-induced climate change. In contrast, forests can also Figure 22-1. Total carbon stocks by forest ecosystem
serve as a net emitter of CO2 during years of extreme wildfires component in the United States, 1990–2007 (Tg CO2e).
or widespread disturbance. In addition to showing current 70
estimates of carbon pools, this indicator provides estimates Tg CO2 e (thousands)
60
of annual forest carbon storage changes (fluxes) that may be 50
subtracted from the gross emissions to estimate net emissions.
40
30
All carbon pools, with the exception of soil carbon, are 10
estimated using the Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and 0
Analysis (FIA) measured data or imputed data, along with
19 0
19 1
19 2
19 3
19 4
19 5
19 6
19 7
19 8
20 9
20 0
20 1
20 2
20 3
20 4
20 5
20 6
07
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
inventory-to-carbon relationships, developed using informa- Year

Aboveground biomass Belowground biomass
tion from ecological studies. Thus, trends of volume and area Dead wood Litter
in other indicators based on FIA data should be consistent Soil organic carbon
Figure 22-2. Forest aboveground live biomass carbon stocks by county for United States, 2006 (Mg CO2e).
Aboveground live-tree biomass

(Mg CO2e)
Greater than 300
251–300
201–250
150–200
500 miles Less than 150
Less than 5% forest land or no data

0.5
0.4
Percent
0.3
0.2
distributed within forested regions of the country (fig. 22-4). What

0.1 has changed since 2003?
U.S. forests offset more than 11 percent of total U.S. CO2
Total 0forest ecosystem carbon stocks were maintained with
emissions in 2006. This rate of offset has remained relatively
positive
– 0.1 increases from forest area expansion and growth.
constant for the past two decades (fig. 22-5). Overall, the
Despite these increases, total U.S. GHG emissions still
90
91
19 2
93
94
95
96
97
19 8
99
00
01
20 2
03
20 4
05
06
9
0
tremendous forest carbon stocks of the United States continue
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
outpaced forest ecosystem gains.Year
to gradually increase, increasing GHG emissions continue to Aboveground biomass Litter
greatly outpace what forests can sequester annually. Belowground biomass Soil organic carbon
Dead wood
Figure 22-3. Percent of total carbon stock by forest Figure 22-5. Total greenhouse gas emissions versus to-
ecosystem component sequestered annually in the tal forest ecosystem sequestration in the United States,
United States, 1990–2006. 1990–2006 (Tg CO2e).
0.8
7
0.7
6
Tg CO2e (thousands)
0.6
5
0.5
4
0.4
3
Percent
0.3 2
0.2 1
0.1 0
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
Year
– 0.1 Total GHG emission Total forest sequestion
90
91
19 2
93
94
95
96
97
19 8
99
00
01
20 2
03
20 4
05
06
9
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Aboveground biomass Litter
Belowground biomass Soil organic carbon
Dead wood
Figure 22-4. Total forest ecosystem carbon stock annual flux by county in the United States, 2006 (Mg CO2e per year).
6
Tg CO2e (thousands)
0
Aboveground stock changes
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
(Mg CO2e yr – 1)
Year
Greater than 10
Total GHG emission Total forest sequestion
2.1 to 10
– 1.9 to 2.0
– 10 to – 2
500 miles Less than – 10
Less than 5% forest land or no data
Note: In conformance with IPCC reporting protocols, carbon sequuestration is denoted by negative numbers (blue) while carbon emissions to the atmosphere are
represented by positive numbers (red).

Indicator 5.23. Total Forest Product Carbon The annual amount of HWP contribution as a percent of total
forest carbon stock has decreased since 1990 (fig. 23-3).
Pools and Fluxes
Figure 23-1. Harvested wood product contribution to
What is the indicator and why is it important? CO2 removals under the three accounting approaches,
Indicator 5.23 assesses the role that forest products play in 1990 to 2006 (Tg CO2e).
the sequestration, cycling, or emission of carbon. Long-term 180
storage of carbon in products and landfills delays or reduces 160
carbon emissions. Use of wood products can also reduce
140
emissions if they substitute for products with higher carbon 180
180
120
emission processes. As domestic forest biomass is harvested 160
160
Tg CO2e
carbon is shifted from forest ecosystems to forest products held 100
140
140
in products and landfills. The rate of accumulation of carbon 80
120
120
in products can be influenced by the mix of products and uses 60
CO2e2e
100
(e.g., the lumber used in housing versus the paperboard used 100
40
TgCO
in boxes) and by patterns of disposal, recycling, and landfill 80
80
Tg
20
management. This indicator shows the harvested wood product 60
60
0
(HWP) contribution to the combined system of annual CO2 40 05
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
06
40 20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
emissions and removals by forests and products. This indicator 20 Year
20 Production
primarily uses the production accounting approach to track Atmospheric flow Stock change
0
0
the HWP contribution. This approach tracks carbon levels 5
Figure 23-2. Cumulative annual harvested wood 200005
9090
9191
9292
9393
9494
9595
9696
9797
9898
9999
0000
0101
0202
0303
0404
0606
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
in wood that was harvested in the United States, including product
140 contribution Year
by location
Yearof storage—wood
2
Production Atmospheric flow Stock change
carbon held products that are exported. The United States uses and120 Production
paper products in use Atmospheric flow
and wood and Stock
paper change
prod-
this approach to report the HWP contribution under the UN uct100
in landfills, 1990–2006 (Tg CO2e).
Framework Convention on Climate change. HWP contributions 140
140
80
Tg CO2e
are also shown for the stock change approach which tracks 120
120
carbon stock changes in the United States and the atmospheric 60
100
100
flow approach which tracks net carbon exchange with the 40
80
CO2e2e
atmosphere. Estimates are made using methods recommended 80

20
TgCO
60
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 60
0
Tg
40 05
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
06
40 20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
20 Wood in use Paper in use
0 Wood in landfills Paper in landfills
In 2006, under the production approach, HWP contribution due 0
055
9090
9191
9292
9393
9494
9595
9696
9797
9898
9999
0000
0101
0202
0303
0404
0606
to carbon additions to forest products in use and in landfills 22000
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
Year
Wood in use Year
in use Paper
Paper in
in use
was 110 million tons CO2 equivalent or about 17 percent of the Wood use
Wood in
Wood in landfills
landfills Paper in
Paper in landfills
landfills
value of annual carbon additions to forest ecosystems. In 2006
this contribution offset emissions equal to about 34 percent of
Figure
3.5 23-3. Annual harvested wood product carbon
the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion in residential hous-
additions
3.0 as a percent of total forest plus product car-
ing. The annual contribution is now less than the contribution bon stock in the United States, 1990–2006.
in 1990 due, in part, to the decreasing amount of U.S. timber 2.5
3.5
3.5
harvested and to the replacement of products from domestic
Percent
2.0
3.0
harvest products by imported products. Under the stock change 3.0
1.5
accounting approach, HWP contribution has increased notably 2.5
2.5
1.0
since 1990 because of increases in imports. Annual contribu-
Percent
2.0
Percent
2.0
0.5
tions under the atmospheric flow approach are about the same 1.5
1.5
as for the production approach (fig. 23-1). 0
1.0
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
20 4
05
06
1.0
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
Under the production approach, additions to carbon storage 0.5

0.5
Year
have been increasing for solidwood products in landfills, and 0
Products in use Solid waste disposal sites
0
decreasing for solidwood in uses, and for paper in uses and
9090
9191
9292
19193 3
9494
9595
9696
9797
9898
9999
0000
0101
0202
0303
20204 4
0505
0606
99
00
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
1919
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
landfills. Annual additions to paper in uses were negative for Year

Year
Products
Products in
in use Solid
Solid waste
waste disposal
disposal sites
the 2001-to-2003 period. (fig. 23-2). use sites

In 2007, total carbon stored in forest products in use and in Are there important regional differences?
landfills under the production approach equaled more than
Regional differences in contribution to carbon storage in prod-
8,000 Tg CO2 equivalent or more than 1 year worth of CO2
ucts were identified by estimating the contribution each county
emissions in the United States.
makes to wood carbon storage. The objective is to estimate the
A rough estimate of the GHG emission savings because of portion of carbon harvested in 2006 that is still stored after 100
building wood framed single-family detached homes in 2005 years. To do this we estimate the wood harvest in each county,
instead of building homes using example designs that use estimate the wood products that are produced (lumber, panels,
steel or concrete walls is 1.7 million tons of CO2 equivalent. and paper), the end uses where those products are used (e.g.,
This potential savings is because of lower Greenhouse Gas housing and paper products), the rate of discard from use, the
emissions associated with production of wood products. The rate of disposal to landfills, and their decay from landfills. The
emission savings associated with using wood in single-family amount still stored after 100 years has offset an equivalent CO2
detached homes is only part of the total savings, which would emission for 100 years.
also include wood framed single-family attached and multifam-
Figure 23-4 shows the estimated amounts of carbon still stored
ily houses. Single-family detached houses provided about 54
in products from 2006 harvest in U.S. counties after 100 years
percent of the total housing floor area build in 2005.
in tons of carbon storage per hectare of timber land. Carbon
storage per hectare is highest for timber land in Midwest and
What has changed since 2003? Mid-Atlantic States. The amount of carbon stored per hectare
The estimates of HWP contribution to forests and products after 100 years is influenced by the harvest per hectare and by
emissions and removals have been improved and now bet- the mix of sawlogs or pulpwoods and softwoods or hardwoods
ter track effects of changes in product production, use and produced. About 30 percent of carbon from both hardwood and
disposal. It is now estimated that the HWP contribution to softwood sawlogs is stored after 100 years along with about
carbon storage has decreased since 1990 under the production 20 percent from hardwood pulpwood and 10 percent from
and atmospheric flow accounting approaches. softwood pulpwood.
Figure 23-4. Estimated amount of carbon still stored in 100 years from wood harvest in 2006 by county (Mg CO2e
per hectare of timber land).
Harvested C Remaining After 100 Years

(Mg CO2e ha– 1)
Greater than 15.0
10.1–15.0
7.6–10.0
5.1–7.5
Less than 5.0
500 miles
Albers Equal-Area Conic Projection 0 or no data

Indicator 5.24. Avoided Fossil Fuel Carbon percent) and commercial applications (3 percent). The energy
generated by burning wood has decreased from a high level
Emissions by Using Forest Biomass for in 1989, but the wood used for electric power production has
Energy increased about 90 percent from a low level in 1989. Because
the burning of wood may potentially avoid GHG emissions
What is the indicator and why is it important? over a period of time given sustainable forest management, the
Nearly 80 percent of the gross 7,054.2 Tg of CO2 equivalents avoided CO2 emissions may be stated in terms of offsetting the
emitted by the United States in 2007 came from the combustion burning of several alternate fossil fuels. The burning of wood
of fossil fuels for energy. If the combustion of forest biomass for energy in 2007 avoided the emissions of approximately
for energy occurs in lieu of burning fossil fuels, then fossil fuel 59, 35, or 48 Tg CO2e if coal, natural gas, or fuel oil was the
emissions may be reduced. If 100 percent of the removed/har- fossil energy source, respectively (fig. 24-2). A great variety of
vested forest biomass is eventually regenerated and, then there electric utility applications have used wood as a source of en-
will be a net reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ergy across the United States in 2007 (fig. 24-3), often through
because the burning of nonrenewable fuels (e.g., coal) was co-generation at wood processing facilities. Most of the electric
avoided. If forest sources of wood are used, the net offset of utility sites are located near sources of forest biomass, such
emissions is attained slowly over time and the pace of attaining as the West coast, Lake States, Northeast, and Southeast.
offsets depends on what would have happened to the wood Currently, hundreds of electric utility plants use wood derived
source (growth, decay) if it was not used for energy. as waste from forest product industries for power generation
and, thus, avoid GHG emission. However, the amount of power
produced from wood residue burning is a small fraction of the
power produced by fossil fuel electric utility plants nationwide.
In 2007, more than 2,100 trillion BTUs (British Thermal Units)
3,000
were generated in the United States from the combustion of
wood in the form of fuelwood logs, wood chips, mill wastes, 2,500
and black liquor at pulp mills (fig. 24-1). This amount is about The use of wood as an energy source and thereby avoidance of
fossil
2,000fuel emissions has been decreasing since the mid-1990s.
BTUs (trillions)
2 percent of all energy consumed in 2007. Burning fossil fuels

is the primary remaining source for generating BTUs. Most Although
1,500
widespread use of, and access to, wood as an energy
wood energy was consumed in industrial applications (67 source exists in the United States, it still represents less than
percent), followed by residential (21 percent), electric utility (8 1 percent
1,000 of power generation nationwide.
500
Figure 24-1. Total energy produced through burning Figure 0

24-2. Avoided greenhouse gas emissions in
of wood in United States, 1990–2007 (BTUs, trillions). terms of coal, natural gas, or fuel oil through burning of
19 0
91
92
19 3
19 4
19 5
96
19 7
98
20 9
20 0
20 1
02
20 3
20 4
05
20 6
07
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
3,000
wood by industrial and residential
Year users for heat/elec-
tricity in United States, 2007 (Tg CO2e).
2,500
70
2,000
BTUs (trillions)
60
1,500 50
40
Tg CO2e
1,000
30
500
20
0
19 0
91
92
19 3
19 4
19 5
96
19 7
98
20 9
20 0
20 1
02
20 3
20 4
05
20 6
07
10
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
0
Coal Natural gas Fuel oil
Energy Source
70
60
50
40
Tg CO2e
30
20
10
Figure 24-3. Location and avoided emissions (Tg CO2e) of public electric utilities using wood as a power generation
source in lieu of burning coal in relation to aboveground forest biomass (Mg/ha), 2007.
Coal offsets from biomass

(Mg CO2e yr – 1)
Greater than 50,000
25,001–50,000
10,001–25,000
5,001–10,000
Less than 5,000
Forest biomass
(Mg CO2e ha– 1)
Greater than 250
200.1–250
150.0–200
500 miles 100.0–150
Less than 100

Criterion 6
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Multiple

Socioeconomic Benefits To Meet the Needs of Societies
Although the first five criteria are centered in the environmental The data—Significant data changes have occurred since 2003,
sphere of sustainability (with the exception of Criterion 2, including (1) addition of new indicators with new data, particularly
which clearly overlaps the economic sphere), Criterion 6 is on environmental services, distribution of revenue, resilience of
centered firmly in the economic sphere. As the sole criterion communities and importance of forests, (2) expansion of time
with an economic focus, it has more (20) indicators than any of trends related mostly to forest products and nonwood products,
the environmental criteria. Its first two subcategories reflect the and (3) expansion of data on regional differences in amounts
basic economic breakdown of goods (e.g., wood products) and and trends for more indicators, including forest products, non-
services (e.g., tourism). The investment subcategory provides wood products, and recreation. Coverage for some data has
indicators of society’s attention to forest maintenance. The changed because one time studies done for 2003 were not
cultural subcategory includes the most social of the socioeco- repeated the same way, for example updates of employment in
nomic indicators, and the employment subcategory provides forest based recreation in tourism for 2010 are for more limited
indicators of the forests’ capacity to provide work, wages, and categories of employment.
subsistence.
The indicators—The following table summarizes the revisions.
Indicator reference numbers for 2003 and 2010 are provided to
assist in comparisons with the previous report. A more detailed
rationale for the revisions may be found at http://www.rinya.
maff.go.jp/mpci/meetings/18_e.htm.
Criterion 6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of
societies (1 of 2).
2003 2010
Reference Reference
Production and Consumption
29 Value and volume of wood and wood Improve wording, restrict value added to 6.25 Value and volume of wood and wood
products production, including value secondary products products production, including primary
added through downstream processing and secondary processing
30 Value and quantities of production of Improve wording 6.26 Value of nonwood forest products
nonwood forest products produced or collected
6.27 Revenue from forest-based
environmental services
31 Supply and consumption of wood and Improve wording 6.28 Total and per capita consumption of
wood products, including consumption wood and wood products in round-
per capita wood equivalents
32 Value of wood and nonwood products DELETE
production as a percentage of GDP
34 Supply and consumption/use of Improve wording 6.29 Total and per capita consumption of
nonwood products nonwood forest products
NEW 6.30 Value and volume in roundwood
equivalents of exports and imports of
wood products

Criterion 6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of
societies (2 of 2).
2003 2010
Reference Reference
NEW 6.31 Value of exports and imports of

nonwood products
NEW 6.32 Exports as a share of wood and wood
products production and imports as
a share of wood and wood products
consumption
33 Degree of recycling of forest products Include percent of total consumption 6.33 Recovery or recycling of forest products
as a percent of total forest products
consumption
Investment in the Forest Sector
38 Value of investment, including Include annual expenditure 6.34 Value of capital investment and annual
investment in forest growing, forest expenditure in forest management,
health management, planted forests, wood and nonwood product industries,
wood processing, recreation, and forest-based environmental services,
tourism recreation, and tourism
39 Level of expenditure on research and Confine to “forest-related” only 6.35 Annual investment and expenditure in
development and on education forest-related research, extension and
development, and education
40 Extension and use of new and DELETE
improved technologies
41 Rates of return on investment DELETE
Employment and community needs
44 Direct and indirect employment in the Improve wording 6.36 Employment in the forest products
forest sector and the forest sector sector
employment as a proportion of total
employment
45 Average wage rates and injury rates in Restrict to forest sector 6.37 Average wage rates, annual average
major employment categories within income, and annual injury rates in major
the forest sector forest employment categories
46 The viability and adaptability to Broaden context 6.38 The resilience of forest-dependent
changing economic conditions of communities
forest-dependent communities,
including indigenous communities
47 Area and percent of forest land used No change 6.39 Area and percent of forests used for
for subsistence purposes subsistence purposes
6.40 Distribution of revenues derived from
forest management
Recreation and Tourism
35 Area and percent of forest land Improve wording 6.41 Area and percent of forests available
managed for general recreation and and managed for public recreation and
tourism in relation to the total area of tourism
forest land
36 Number and type of facilities available Merge to new 6.42
for general recreation and tourism in
relation to population and forest area
37 Number of visitor days attributed to Merge with above to new 6.42 6.42 Number, type, and geographic
recreation and tourism in relation to distribution of visits attributed to
population and forest area recreation and tourism and related to
facilities available
Cultural, social, and spiritual needs
and values
42 Area and percent of forest land Improve wording 6.43 Area and percent of forests managed
managed in relation to the total area primarily to protect the range of cultural,
of forest land to protect the range of social, and spiritual needs and values
cultural, social, and spiritual needs and
values
43 Nonconsumptive use forest values DELETE
NEW 6.44 The importance of forests to people

Indicator 6.25. Value and Volume of Wood Figure 25-1. Volume of U.S industrial roundwood and
fuelwood production (harvest), 1900–2006 (billion cubic
and Wood Products Production, Including feet) (Total line includes industrial roundwood plus
Primary and Secondary Processing fuelwood).
20 250
What is the indicator and why is it important? 18

200
2005 dollars (billions)

16
The value and volume of wood and wood products indicates

14
150
the relative importance of forests as a source of raw material 12
20 250
for a wide variety of uses. Tracking the values and volumes 10 100
18
8
of goods and services through the production process from 200

16
6 50
the forest to the end of secondary processing explains a key

14
4
150
dimension of the economic contribution that forests make to 12
2 0
250
20
local and national economies.
60
10
0
18 100
19
8 200
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
00

16
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
What does the indicator show? Year

6 50
14
Industrial roundwood Total 150
4
12
The volume of total roundwood harvest (including fuelwood) in Source: USDA Forest Service
2
250 0
10 100
the United States increased fairly steadily from about 10 billion
60
0
8
19
cubic feet in the 1930s to 18.8 billion cubic feet in 1989. Since
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
00
200
Figure
6 25-2. Weight of wood and paper products 50
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Year
1989, harvest has declined, reaching a level of 16.4 billion Tons (millions) Tons (millions) Tons (millions)
produced
4 by product 1950–2006
Industrial roundwood(million tons).
Total
150 12
cubic feet in 2006 (fig. 25-1), a figure equivalent to about 25 2 0
250
60
percent of world harvest. Industrial roundwood production 0
100
19
10
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
00
increased steadily between the mid-1930s and 1989 and has
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
200
Year

50
since been roughly constant. Industrial roundwood Total 8
150 12
The amount of primary wood and paper products produced in 250
0 6
the United States increased relatively steadily from 82 million
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
100 10
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
200 Year
tons in 1950 to 203 million tons in 1999 and has since then Pulp, paper, paperboard Softwood lumber 4

50 Hardwood lumber Softwood plywood 8
declined to 191 in 2006 (fig. 25-2). In comparison, in 2006, 150
Oriented strandboard Nonstructural panels
12
2
the United States produced 9.5 million tons of steel and 142 0 Other industrial product
6
100 10
million tons of Portland cement.
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
3.0 Year

4
The decline since 1999 is due primarily to declines in Pulp, paper, paperboard
50 Softwood lumber 8
2.5 Hardwood lumber Softwood plywood
production of pulp and paper, hardwood lumber and softwood Oriented strandboard Nonstructural panels 2
0 6
plywood. These declines offset an increase of 29 percent in ori- 2.0
Other industrial product
Tons (millions) Tons (millions) Tons (millions)
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
Source: USDA Forest Service and other sources
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
ented strandboard (OSB) production. In 2006 the largest share Year 0
3.0
1.5 Pulp, paper, paperboard Softwood lumber 4
140
of production, by weight, was for pulp and paper (51 percent) Hardwood lumber Softwood plywood
followed by softwood and laminated veneer lumber (LVL) (21 Figure
2.5
1.0 25-3.Oriented
Woodstrandboard
energy produced, by consumer,
Nonstructural panels 120
2
Other industrial product

percent), hardwood lumber (10 percent), nonstructural panels 1950–2006 (10^15 BTUs). 100
2.0
0.5
(6 percent), OSB (5 percent), softwood plywood (4 percent) 3.0
0
80
1.5
and other industrial products (3 percent) (fig. 25-2). 0 140
60
2.5
50
55
60
80
5
6
120
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
1.0
Wood energy use was 2.2 quadrillion BTUs (British Thermal Year 40
2.0 Residential Commercial Industrial Electric power

Units) (Quad) in 2006 (roughly 2.4 percent of U.S. consump- 0.5
100
20
tion), down from 2.7 Quad in 1983. Industrial use (primarily 1.5 80
140
0 0
in forest products firms) was 1.5 Quadrillion in 2006 which 60
120
1.0
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
is somewhat lower than highs in 1983 and 2000. Residential

19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year 40
Residential Commercial Industrial Electric power 100
wood energy use has also declined but wood use for electric 0.5
20
80
power has increased from 0.10 Quad in 1989 to 0.18 Quad in 0
0
2006 (fig 25-3). (see Indicator 24). Wood pellet fuel production 60
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
increased from about 0.5 million tons (6 percent moisture Year 40

Residential Commercial Industrial Electric power
content) (0.01 Quad) in 2003 to 1.8 million tons in 2008 (0.03 Source: U.S. Department of Energy 20
Quad). In 2008 about 20 percent of production was exported.
0
Most domestic use was for residential heating.

Total value of shipments for wood, paper, and furniture Relation to other indicators
industries, using SIC (Standard Industrial Classification)
The level and trend in this indicator are factors in sustaining
industry codes, increased between 1973 and 1996 from $288
benefits from forests employment and wages (Indicators 6.36
to $356 billion (all values adjusted for inflation and presented
and 6.37), distribution of revenues (Indicator 6.40), and com-
in 2005 dollars). Between 1997 and 2006, using U.S. Census
munity resiliency (Indicator 6.38). The level of wood and
(NAICS (North American Industry Classification System))
paper production is determined by the competitiveness of U.S.
industry codes, shipments decreased from $322 billion to $309
industries compared to foreign industries which, in turn, is
billion (fig. 25-4). The decrease was due to a 10 percent decline
influenced by capital investment in new technology (Indicator
for paper industries. Furniture industries increased 13 percent
6.34), by levels of research and education (Indicator 6.35), and
and wood products industries were nearly constant.
by productivity of forests (Indicator 6.11).

Figure 25-4. Value of shipments for forest products in-
The volume of roundwood harvest and total weight of primary dustries by SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) code,
products production remained relatively stable between 2000 1961–1996, and by NAICS (North American Industry
and 2006, although the weight of production has increased Classification System) code, 1997–2006 (billions of 2005
for softwood lumber, OSB and miscellaneous products and dollars) (each line is added to the line below).
declined
20 for other primary products—pulp and paper, hard- 250
wood18 lumber, softwood plywood, and nonstructural panels.
200
dollars (billions)
16
The14
value of paper industry shipments decreased 12 percent
20 150
250
between
12 2000 and 2006 from $187 to $165 billion, but values
18
were stable between 2000 and 2006 for wood products and
10 100
200
(billions)
16
wood8 furniture shipments (fig. 25-4).
14
2005 dollars 2005
6 50
150
12
4
10
2 0
100
8
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
A marked
increase in roundwood harvests occurred in the
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
6 Year 50
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
00
South4 along with concurrent reductions in the North and Pacific Lumber and wood products—SIC 24
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Year Paper and allied products—SIC 26

Coast2 Regions. Industrial roundwood
Industrial roundwoodharvestTotal
volume increased 0
Wood furniture from parts of SIC 25
80 250
percent in the South between 1970 and 2006, accounting
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
0 Wood products NAICS 321
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
00
for 62 percent of the United States total in 2006. In 2006, the Paper
Lumberproducts
and wood NAICS 322
products—SIC 24
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Year Wood and

Paper furniture
alliedfrom parts of NAICS
products—SIC 26 337
North
200 provided 18 percent of the roundwood harvest, followed
Industrial roundwood Total Source: U.S. Department Wood
of Commerce,
furniture Bureau of Census
from parts of SIC 25
by 250
the Pacific Coast at 16 percent, and the Rocky Mountains
Tons (millions)
150 12 Wood products NAICS 321

at 3 percent. Harvest decreased between 1991 and 2006 in all Paper products NAICS 322
Figure 25-5. Volume
Woodoffurniture
all industrial
from parts roundwood
of NAICS 337
regions
100 except the South (fig. 25-5).
200 10
harvested by region, 1952–2006 (billions of cubic feet).
Tons (millions)
Percent
50 changes in harvest are not fully reflected in the value
150 12
8
of final product shipments, which have remained much more
100
stable0 across the regions (fig. 25-6). Although the South had 10
6
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
the largest volume of harvest in Year 2006, the value of shipments

19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
50 8
Softwood lumber 4
for the wood and paper
Pulp, industries
paper, paperboardwas highest for the North, at
Hardwood lumber Softwood plywood
$1080billion, followed by the South,
Oriented strandboard at $104 billion. Value of
Nonstructural panels 6
2
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
shipments has declined since 1997

Other industrial product in the North, South and Pa-
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
cific Coast, andPulp,
has paper,
increased in the Rocky
paperboard Mountain
Softwood lumber Region. 4
0
3.0 Hardwood lumber Softwood plywood North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
State level dataOriented
on the strandboard
value of wood furniture production
Nonstructural panels were Region
2
not2.5
available but may
Other alter these
industrial productresults.
1952 1962 1970 1976 1986
1991 1997 2001 2006
2.0 0
Tons (millions)
3.0 North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast

1.5 Region
2.5 140
1952 1962 1970 1976 1986
1.0 1991 1997 120
2001 2006
2.0
Tons (millions)
dollars (billions)
Source: USDA Forest Service

100
0.5
1.5 140
80
0 120
1.0
60
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
(billions)
100
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
0.5 Year 40
II–70
llars 2005
Residential Commercial Industrial Electric power National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

80
0 20
60
0
5
2
Cubic
4
d
els 2
0
North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Region
Figure 25-6. Value of shipments in wood and paper
1952 1962 1970 1976 1986
products industries (NAICS
1991 1997321, 322)2006
2001 by region (billions
The value of permit and contract sales of nontimber forest
of 2005 dollars).
products (NTFP) from Forest Service and BLM land declined
140
overall by about 30 percent between 1998 and 2007, from
120 $9.5 to $6.5 million (all dollar figures adjusted for inflation
100 and reported in 2005 dollars). Nonwood products decreased

80 18 percent and secondary wood products decreased 36 percent
60
(table 26-1). These fluctuations are expected with products that
00
05
fruit better in some years than others, such as fungi or pine

20
20
40
ctric power nuts. The nonwood products value declined from $2.6 to $2.1
20
million and the secondary wood products value declined from
0 $6.9 to $4.4 million.
Region
Nonwood products include many plants, lichens, and fungi
1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census from forests, including understory species used in floral
markets, for seasonal greenery, as wild foods, for medicinals,
as plant extracts, and for transplants.
Indicator 6.26. Value of Nonwood Forest Secondary wood products include fuelwood, posts and poles,
and Christmas trees. Production of these items is significant in
Products Produced or Collected many regions.
What is the indicator and why is it important? Although annual or regularly collected data on domestic
production and prices for NTFPs are generally not available,
Nonwood forest products are items harvested or gathered from
permit and contract data from the Forest Service and the
forests that are not traditional wood products. Nonwood forest
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) can serve as a benchmark
products are important components of the economic value of
to assess use and value for many NTFPs. Information about
forests and their collection and processing makes an important
game animal and fur-bearer populations and harvest is collected
contribution to economic activity. Many of these products
by State and Federal agencies, but national information is not
also are important to indigenous people and others for their
generally available for all species. Prices for many NTFPs in
contribution to cultural values and subsistence activities.
the United States are influenced by international supply and
In this indicator we cover nontimber forest products (NTFP), demand, by seasonal fluctuation in availability, and by rising
which includes both (1) nonwood products that do not include domestic demand. Forest Service and BLM sales data are used
the main stem of trees, and (2) selected secondary wood to assess NTFP first point of sales value by several categories,
products—fuelwood, posts and poles, and Christmas trees including landscaping uses; crafts and floral uses; regeneration
that do include the main stem of trees. The secondary wood and silvicultural seeds and cones; edible fruits, fungi, nuts, and
products are included because we estimate their value using the saps; grass, hay, and forage; herbs and medicinals; and for three
same methods as for nonwood products. We also include the categories of secondary wood products, including fuelwood,
value of game animals taken by hunting and trapping. posts and poles, and Christmas trees.
Table 26-1. Receipts for wild-harvested nontimber resources from Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
permits and contracts, 1998–2007 (millions of 2005 dollars).
Product Category 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Landscaping 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Crafts/floral 1.1 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.2
Seed/cones 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Edible fruits, nuts, sap 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4
Grass/forage 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Herbs, medicinals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 2.6 2.1 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.1
Fuelwood 4.0 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.7 3.0
Posts and poles 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
Christmas trees 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.2
Total 9.5 8.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.5 6.8 6.3 5.8 6.5

It is possible to make a very rough estimate of total national egory) have ranged from $6 million to $165 million compared
wholesale value for those types of NTFPs that are provided to our estimate of first sale value of about $55 million for that
from Forest Service and BLM land. First, assuming that the entire Crafts/Floral category in 2007.
value per unit that the Forest Service and BLM receive is 10
percent of value per unit received at the first point of sales. Sec- What has changed since 2003?
ond, we assume that the Forest Service and the BLM provide
NTFP appraisal methods and monitoring of commercial harvesting
particular proportions of total national production depending
have improved considerably on Forest Service land as a result
on the category. As a general guide about proportions we note
of the Federal Pilot Program of Charges and Fees for Harvest of
that the national forest land constitutes about 20 percent of
Forest Botanical Products established in 2000. The law defines
total forest land in the United States, and the BLM about 1.5
botanical products as florals, mushrooms, and so on removed
percent. Sometimes particular products are harvested more on
from Federal forests (excluding wood products), defines fair
Federal land than elsewhere, and sometimes less. The third
market value, and requires that permit fees be based on a deter-
step is to assume the first point-of-sale values are 40 percent of
mination of fair market value and sustainable harvest levels.
wholesale values. First point of sale value refers to the initial
transaction by which a product enters the marketplace. It is
comparable to farm values, which commonly run about 40 Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at
percent of wholesale value. this time?
More complete data on sources and values of NTFPs are
The resulting estimate in 2007 for national wholesale value of
needed beyond those presented from the Forest Service and
nonwood products produced was about $232 million (down
BLM. The assumptions used to expand those estimates to total
19 percent since 1998) and for secondary wood products was
wholesale value cannot be defended as a continuing means
about $391 million (down 35 percent since 1998) for a total of
to make complete estimates on the level and trend for this
about $622 million (down 30 percent since 1998) (table 26-2).
indicator. Prominent data gaps include personal use of NTFPs,
These are very rough estimates, and actual values may be quite and production and value from private lands. No single source
different. For example, alternate estimates of national first sale of data exists for NTFPs, nor is it expected that there ever will
value for moss production value (part of the Crafts/ Floral cat- be. It is unclear how consistent or comparable data sources are
in terms of value and scale.
Table 26-2. Estimated wholesale value of wild-harvested nontimber resources in the United States, assuming Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management sales receipts are 10 percent of first point of sales value; Forest Service sales
represent approximately 20 to 30 percent and Bureau of Land Management sales represent approximately 2 to 15
percent of total supply; and first point of sales value is 40 percent of wholesale price (millions of 2005 dollars).
Product Category 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Landscaping 89 73 56 54 51 44 37 35 28 28
Crafts/floral 119 105 83 112 134 126 118 87 89 138
Seed/cones 6 2 5 5 12 6 3 5 3 3
Edible fruits, nuts, sap 56 38 41 56 47 49 58 46 35 42
Grass/forage 15 14 16 19 20 19 17 24 19 19
Herbs, medicinals 1 2 2 0 3 3 2 2 1 2
Subtotal 285 234 202 246 267 247 236 199 175 232
Fuelwood 397 367 306 312 323 310 294 271 273 302
Posts and poles 89 65 67 35 33 40 29 33 26 24
Christmas trees 114 94 96 102 97 96 80 82 66 65
Total 885 760 671 695 720 693 639 585 540 622

Indicator 6.27. Revenue From Forest-Based (19 percent) (table 27-1). In 2007, sales of forest wetland
mitigation credits amounted to $727 million, conservation bank
Environmental Services credits were $34 million, sales of carbon offsets were $1.7 million,
conservation easements were $315 million, hunting leases and
What is the indicator and why is it important? entrance fees were $410 million, and wildlife viewing entrance
Although many studies estimate the value of environmental fees were $34 million. Wetland mitigation accounted for the
services to society, this indicator focuses on how much largest percentage of forest-based ecosystem service payments,
society is actually paying landowners for those services. with 39 percent of all payments in 2007. These payments were
These payments represent the financial incentives landowners received by only about 173 private forest mitigation banks,
actually face in managing their lands to enhance environmental however, accounting for only a miniscule proportion of all
services. Therefore, tracking the actual payments to landowners private forest landowners in the United States. Hunting leases
is essential for designing effective policies for environmental and entrance fees represented about 22 percent of all payments,
service production, improving forest policy and management conservation easements were 17 percent, wildlife viewing and
decisionmaking, and for assessing the overall contribution of conservation banks each accounted for 1.8 percent, and carbon
forests to economies and well-being. Note, however, that the offsets were 0.001 percent of all forest-based payments for
results presented here are simply a measure of the amount of environmental services in 2007.
revenues landowners actually receive for producing environ-
mental services rather than a measure of underlying values. What has changed since 2003?
This indicator is new for 2008 and, therefore, was not
What does the indicator show? reported in 2003. We, however, report changes in payments
The results presented here reflect incentive payments from for environmental services from 2005 to 2007. Figure 27-1
Federal and State agencies, payments by developers to private shows the change in payments made to landowners by category
wetland mitigation and conservation banks, sales of carbon from 2005 to 2007. Available data for wetlands mitigation
offsets produced on U.S. forest lands in the voluntary carbon and conservation banking did not allow calculation of annual
market, purchases of conservation easements by nongovern- changes; average values were used for all 3 years. Government
mental organizations, and payments for leases and entrance payments increased from $378 million in 2005 to $380 million
fees to hunt and view wildlife on private forest lands. Data in 2006, but then fell to $365 million in 2007, resulting in an
were not available for Federal, State, and local tax incentives; average annual decline of 1.6 percent. In contrast, payments by
water quality trading and watershed source protection; price nongovernment sources grew from $1.6 billion in 2005 to $1.8
premiums paid by consumers for sustainable harvested timber billion in 2007. Estimated payments for forest carbon offsets
and wood products; and incentive payments by forest industry increased by an average of 99 percent annually, conservation
or forest professional associations. Therefore, these results easements were 47 percent, and hunting and wildlife viewing
should be considered a lower bound. revenues were 5 percent, between 2005 and 2007.
Payments for forest-based ecosystem services to U.S. landown-

Figure 27-1. Total payments by category (carbon
ers from all sources for which data are available totaled $1.9
offsets, wildlife viewing, and hunting) (millions of
billion in 2007, with private sources accounting for $1.5 billion constant 2005 dollars).
(81 percent) and government agencies providing $366 million
2,000
1,800
Table 27-1. Total payments for environmental services 1,600
by source (in thousands of constant 2005 dollars). 1,400
Payor 2005 2006 2007 1,200
Government payments 378 381 366 1,000
Wetland mitigation banks 727 727 727
800
Hunting leases and entrance fees 405 405 410
Conservation easements 162 195 315 600
Conservation banks 34 34 34 400
Wildlife viewing 31 32 34
200
Carbon offsets 0.6 1.6 1.7
0
1,737 1,775 1,887 2005 2006 2007
Carbon offsets Hunting leases and entrance fees
Wildlife viewing Wetland mitigation banks
Conservation banks Government payments
Conservation easements

Carbon offsets Hunting leases and entrance fees
Wildlife viewing Wetland mitigation banks
Conservation banks Government payments
Conservation easements
Are there important regional differences? Figure 27-2. Total payments by type of service between
2005–2007 (thousands of constant 2005 dollars).
Figure 27-3 shows the distribution of payments between States
2,000
from all sources in 2007. Payments per State increased from
an average of $34 million (median equals $19 million) in 2005 1,800
1,600
to $38 million (median equals $18 million) in 2007. Wide
variation existed between States, however. In 2007, the States 1,400
receiving the lowest total payments were Alaska ($428,000), 1,200
Hawaii ($615,000), and North Dakota ($0.95 million). The 1,000
highest payments occurred in Georgia ($173 million), Florida 800
($158 million), and Louisiana ($114 million). 600

400
These results differ, however, when accounting for the overall 200
amount of forest land in each State. Figure 27-4 shows the total
0
ecosystem service payments per acre of forest land for each 2005 2006 2007
Carbon Biodiversity Bundled services
State. Average payment per acre for all sources and all States
was $5.22, with a median of $3.34 per acre of forest land.
These payments were lowest in Alaska ($0.003 per acre) fol- Figure 27-3. Total payments for environmental services
lowed by West Virginia ($0.16 per acre) and Hawaii ($0.32 per in 2007 (thousands of constant 2005 dollars).
acre). The States with the highest revenues per acre of forest Total Forest Ecosystem Services Payments, 2007
Total Forest Ecosystem Services Payments, 2007
land were Illinois ($23 per acre), Colorado ($18 per acre), and
Nebraska ($19 per acre).

this time?
Lack of available data limits our ability for complete account-
ing. Many payments occur in one-off deals between public $1,000s
$1,000s
and private entities, for example, payments by municipalities 428–10,000
428–10,000
and regional water authorities for watershed management and 10,001–25,000
10,001–25,000
25,001–50,000
protection. Quantifying these requires a national survey, which 25,001–50,000
50,001–10,0000
50,001–10,0000
is beyond the scope and budget of this effort. Data are not 100,001–172,805
100,001–172,805
available to track tax incentives landowners receive (e.g., dona-
tions of conservation easements and local and State property Figure 27-4. Total payments per acre of forested land in
taxes). In addition, we were not able to allocate payments to 2007 (constant 2005 dollars).
specific environmental services, because most of the available
Total Payments
Total Payments for
for Forest
Forest Ecosystem
Ecosystem Services
Services
data does not specify which service was purchased. Per Acre
Per Acre of
of Each
Each State's
State's Forest
Forest Land,
Land, 2007
2007
Dollars per acre

Dollars per acre
0.003–2.00
0.003–2.00
2.01–4.00
2.01–4.00
4.01–8.00
4.01–8.00
8.01–16.00
8.01–16.00
16.01–28.09
16.01–28.09

Indicator 6.28. Total and per Capita from 13.2 to 18.9 billion cubic feet. Since 1988, total consump-
tion has been between 19 and 21 billion cubic feet per year
Consumption of Wood and Wood Products in (fig. 28-1). Although, over this same period, U.S. wood harvest
Roundwood Equivalents declined.
Excluding fuelwood, wood and paper products consumption, in

roundwood equivalents, increased steadily between 1965 and
The quantity of wood and wood products consumed is an 2006, from 12.3 to 18.8 billion cubic feet (fig. 28-2). During
indicator of the relative importance of forests as a source this same period, use of softwood and hardwood roundwood
of raw materials. Information on the consumption of forest increased 53 and 56 percent, respectively. Fuelwood consump-
products, especially when compared to production levels, helps tion increased to a high of 3.6 billion cubic feet in 1984 and had
to illustrate the balance between supply and demand. When declined to 1.6 billion cubic feet in 2006. Most of the increase in
demands for consumption are not balanced by supplies—net wood and paper products consumption occurred between 1965
domestic production plus imports—the imbalance creates price and 1988. The rate of growth in consumption was significantly
pressures that often have repercussions in the forest sector less between 1988 and 2006.
or elsewhere in the economy and society that may call into
question long-term forest sustainability. Per capita consumption of wood and paper products and fuel
wood, in roundwood equivalents, increased between 1965 and
Consumption per capita is an indication of the value people and 1987, from 68 to 83 cubic feet per year. From 1987 through
businesses place on wood products, given their prices, prices 2006 per capita consumption has declined by 18 percent to 68
of substitutes; their perceived use qualities; and environmental cubic feet per year (fig. 28-3).
benefits and costs. It is also integrally linked to timber harvest
and the many factors that influence it, including investment, Excluding fuelwood, per capita consumption of wood and
management, regulation, and owner objectives. These, in turn, paper products, in roundwood equivalents, has been relatively
change timber productivity and ecosystem conditions in various stable,—averaging 63 cubic feet per year. So, in roundwood
25 90
regions. Harvest of wood for imports to the United States equivalents, wood and paper products consumption has been
80
and20export of U.S. products influences forestry and the forest increasing at roughly the pace of population (fig. 28-4).
Cubic feet per capita
70
industry in other countries. Fuelwood use per capita increased to 15.3 cubic feet in 1984
60
15 and has declined to 5.2 cubic feet in 2006. With increasing net
50
What imports to meet consumption needs, per capita harvest declined
10 does the indicator show? 40
2830percent between 1987 and 2006.
Total consumption of wood and paper products and fuelwood,
5 20
in roundwood equivalents, increased between 1965 and 1988
10
0
0
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
Figure 28-1. U.S. wood production (harvest, including Figure 28-2. U.S. wood and paper product
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
fuelwood) and woodSoftwood
and paper product
industrial consumption
roundwood consumption—subdivided into softwood, hardwood,
Softwood industrial roundwood
(including fuelwood),Hardwood industrial roundwood
in roundwood equivalents, 1965– and fuelwood in roundwood equivalents—1965–2006
Hardwood industrial roundwood
Fuelwood
2006. (each line is addedFuelwood
to the line below).
25 9
25 90
8
80
20 7 20

70
6
15 60
5 15
50
4
10 10 40
3
30
2
5 5 20
1
10
0 0 0
North South
Pacific Coast Rocky Mountains 0
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
Region
65
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
19
Year Softwood industrial roundwood

U.S. wood harvest
Wood and paper product consumption (roundwood equivalent) Fuelwood
Source: USDA Forest Service Sources: USDA Forest Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
90
Census
25 9
80
8
70
ic feet per capita
20 7
c feet (billions)
feet (billions)
60
6
National 15 II–75 5
40
4
30 10
What has changed since 2003? Relation to other indicators
Trends have not changed markedly since 2003 despite 3 years Data from this indicator are being constructed to be consistent
of robust construction and economic growth in the United States. with indicators on consumption (Indicator 6.31), recycling
Total consumption of wood and paper products (including and (Indicator 6.33), employment (Indicator 6.44), and injury rates
excluding fuelwood) have continued to increase although (Indicator 6.45) by using consistent data sources and data
25 90
at a slower rate. Per capita consumption of wood and paper categories to allow comparisons.
80
products
20 alone has remained at about 63 cubic feet. Per capita,

70
and fuelwood consumption has continued to decline. Figure

60 28-4. Per capita U.S. wood and paper product
15
consumption—subdivided
50 into softwood, hardwood,
Are10there important regional differences? and
40 fuelwood in roundwood equivalents—1965–2006
(each
30 line is added to the line below).
The data available for this report does not support the calcula-
5 2090
tion of25different rates of per capita consumption for different
1080
regions
0 in the United States. Given an assumption of uniform
20 070

per capita consumption rates, total regional consumption will

65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year 60
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
depend 15 directly on population, with the greatest consumption
Year
50 Softwood industrial roundwood
occurring in the populous east, industrial
Hardwood followed by the South, the
roundwood
10 Fuelwood 40
Pacific Coast, and lastly, by the Rocky Mountain Region, Fuelwood
30
as shown5 in figure 28-5. In reality per capita use of wood
25 25 9 90
20
and paper will vary by region. For example, use of wood for 8 80
10
20 20
0 7 70
structures is higher in the northwest and lower for the south-
0
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
6 60
west15than the U.S. average.
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
15 Year
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
5 50 Year
4 40 Softwood industrial roundwood
10 10 Fuelwood
3 30 Fuelwood
Sources:
2 920 USDA Forest Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
5255 Census
1 810
0 0 70
020
Figure 28-3. Per capita wood production (harvest, Figure North

28-5. EstimatedSouth
wood and Pacific Coast Rocky Mountains
paper products
65
75
85
95
00
05
7
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
Year 6 Region
consumption by Resource Planning Act region assuming
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
including fuelwood) and woodindustrial
and paper product con-
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
15 Year
SoftwoodYear roundwood 5 Softwood industrial roundwood
sumption (including fuelwood)
U.S. wood harvest in roundwood
Hardwood industrial roundwood equivalent, uniform
4
per capita consumption, in roundwood
1965–2006.
10 Wood and paperFuelwood
product consumption (roundwood equivalent) equivalent, 2006. Fuelwood
3
90 25
29
5
80
18
70 20
07
0
60 North South Pacific Coast Rocky Mountains

6
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
15 Region
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
50 5
Year
40 U.S. wood harvest 4
30 10 Wood and paper product consumption (roundwood equivalent) 3
2090 2
5
1080 1
0700 0
North South Pacific Coast Rocky Mountains

19 65
19 70
19 75
19 80
19 85
19 90
19 95
20 00
20 05
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
Region
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
50 Year
U.S. wood harvest Year Sources: USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
40 U.S. wood harvest
Wood and paper product consumption (roundwood equivalent) Census
Sources: Wood and paper product consumption (roundwood equivalent)
30 USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Census
90
20
80
10
70
0
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
50 Year
U.S. wood harvest
40
Wood and paper product consumption (roundwood equivalent)
30
20
10
0
II–76
5
75
80
85
90
95
00
05

6
7
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
U.S. wood harvest
Indicator 6.29. Total and per Capita What does the indicator show?
Consumption of Nonwood Forest Products From Indicator 26 we have estimates of wholesale value of
production for nonwood products and for nontimber forest
What is the indicator and why is it important? products. The estimate in 2007 for the national wholesale value
of nonwood products produced was about $232 million 2005
Nonwood forest products are items harvested or gathered from
dollars, down 19 percent since 1998 (all values adjusted for
forests that are not traditional wood products. The quantity
inflation and presented in 2005 dollars). For secondary wood
of nonwood forest products consumed indicates the relative
products (fuelwood, post and poles, and Christmas trees), it was
importance of forests as a source of products other than wood
about $391 million (down 35 percent since 1998) for a total of
and wood products. Information on the consumption of nonwood
about $622 million (down 30 percent since 1998) (fig. 29-1).
forest products, especially when compared to sustainable pro-
duction levels, helps to illustrate the balance between supply To estimate value of consumption we first estimate the value of
and demand. When consumption and available supplies are not net imports of selected nonwood and secondary wood products
balanced, price changes are likely to occur that cause economic and then add these estimates to wholesale production estimates.
effects in the forest sector or elsewhere in the economy. Estimates We divide these consumption values by population to obtain
are provided for nontimber forest products and nonwood forest the value of consumption per capita.
products. See definitions for these terms under Indicator 26.
We obtained value of imports and exports for selected non-
The products considered in this indicator are the same as those wood and secondary wood products using Harmonized Trade
presented in Indicator 26. They follow the same definition of Data codes. It was assumed that these selected import and
nontimber forest products (NTFPs), including both nonwood exports are representative of all nonwood forest product trade.
products and selected secondary wood products. This assumption is imperfect, because nonwood forest products
may be included under many different trade codes, but it is not
Although annual or regularly collected data on domestic production
possible to split nonwood forest products out of all categories.
and prices for NTFPs are generally not available, permit and
contract data from the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Under these assumptions we estimated that the United States
Management (BLM) can serve as a benchmark to assess use and is a net importer of nonwood forest products. Estimated net
value for many NTFPs. Nonwood forest products specifically imports decreased between 2003 and 2007 from $157 to $113
included in U.S. export data generally have long traditions of million or 28 percent.
international trade. There is also evidence of emerging signifi-
The net value of U.S. nonwood forest product trade (imports
cance in international trade of some crops from native species,
minus exports) is heavily influenced by vanilla, most of which
such as American matsutake (mushrooms). For purposes of
is imported. Vanilla beans come primarily from Madagascar,
estimating consumption for this indicator, production data
and imports of vanilla beans from that country have dropped
(Indicator 26) were adjusted by known trade (Indicator 31) and
precipitously since cyclone Hudda in 2003 devastated Mada-
the result was assumed to be equivalent to consumption.
gascar’s vanilla-growing regions.
Figure 29-1. A rough estimate of national wholesale value for selected nontimber forest products, 1998–2007
(millions of 2005 dollars).
450
400
350
2005 dollars (millions)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Landscaping Craft/floral Refeneration Edible fruits, Grass/forage Herbs, Fuelwood Posts Christmas
seed/cones nuts, sap medicinals and poles trees
Product
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007

After adding net imports to production we estimate that total Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at
consumption of nonwood products decreased between 2003 this time?
and 2007 from $404 to $345 million or 15 percent (table 29-1).
See data limitations noted for Indicator 26. Results do not
These consumption values should be considered a lower bound
include consumption for personal use. Regional or national data
estimate as they do not include personal use, undocumented
on both harvest and price of nontimber forest products is not
harvest, and certain products that cannot be differentiated in the
available, other than ginseng.
trade data.
In 2007, the value of net imports of nonwood forest products

was about 33 percent of consumption. Indicator 6.30. Value and Volume in
Per capita consumption of nonwood forest products has
Roundwood Equivalents of Exports and
decreased between 2003 and 2007 from $1.4 to $1.1 per person Imports of Wood Products
(table 29-1).
If we add the net imports of nonwood products to production
of all nontimber products, we find that total consumption has For many countries, international trade is a significant factor
increased between 2003 and 2007 from $748 to $815 million; in the commercial use of forests. Exports are, in some cases, a
per capita consumption has increased from $2.6 to $2.7. significant source of value for regional and national economies.
Imports may either supplement or be a substitute for production
These consumption estimates are quite uncertain because error from domestic sources. The values and volumes of wood prod-
in any of a several assumptions could strongly influence the result. uct exports and imports are important because of the increasing
importance of global markets in determining economic
Trade in nonwood forest products has been a small but
developments in our domestic forest sector and in influencing
regionally important part of the U.S. economy for generations.
the sustainability of forest ecosystems both domestically and
International trade in species native to North America is subject
throughout the world.
to many different influences, including globalization of labor
markets, movement of processing to countries with competitive
advantages, and changes in taste and style. International trade What does the indicator show?
in nonwood forest products, in turn, influences sustainable Between 1990 and 2006 the overall value of forest products
forest practices, or the lack thereof, throughout the world. imports increased 73 percent—from $24 to $41 billion (all dol-
lar values adjusted for inflation and reported in 2005 dollars),
What has changed since 2003? but increases have been small since 1999. At the same time, the
value of exports increased 15 percent—from $20 to $24 billion
NTFP appraisal methods and monitoring of commercial harvest-
with most of the increase occurring in the early 1990s and sub-
ing have improved considerably on Forest Service lands as a
sequent declines in more recent years (figs. 30-1 and 30-2). In
result of the Federal Pilot Program of Charges and Fees for
2006, import value was about 71 percent higher than export
Harvest of Forest Botanical Products, established in 2000. The
value. A factor influencing the competitive position of U.S.
law defines botanical products as florals, mushrooms, and so on
products versus those in other countries (and trends in imports
removed from Federal forests (excluding wood products), defines
and exports) is the trend in the value of the U.S. dollar relative
fair market value, and requires that permit fees be based on a
to other currencies.
determination of fair market value and sustainable harvest levels.
Table 29-1. Total wholesale value of consumption and per capita consumption of nonwood (not including second-
ary wood products) and nontimber forest products (including selected secondary wood products), adjusted for trade,
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Nonwood forest products consumption 404 396 270 301 345
Nontimber forest products consumption (includes nonwood 748 746 656 701 815
products)
U.S. population in millions 290 293 296 299 302
Nonwood forest products consumption per capita 1.4 1.4 0.9 1.0 1.1
Nontimber forest products (includes nonwood products) 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.7
consumption per capita

Import value for all groups of forest products increased Import volume increased for all forest product groups between
between 1990 and 1999. Since 1999, the value of imports of 1990 and 2005, and declined for all groups in 2005 and 2006
wood and paper products has not increased, and the import (fig. 30-3). The strong increase in volume through 2004 is in
value in the other wood and log and chip categories have contrast to the limited increase in import value during the same
continued to rise (though the log and chip import value is period.
extremely small relative to the other categories).
The product groups used when estimating roundwood equiva-
Wood products include lumber, veneer, and panels. Other lent of imports and exports are lumber, plywood, and veneer,
wood includes poles and piling, fuelwood, wood charcoal, pulpwood based products (including OSB) and logs and chips.
cork, wood containers, wood doors, and other miscellaneous In 2006, the largest share of import volume—in roundwood
products. Paper products include paper, paperboard, pulp, and equivalent—was for lumber (76 percent), followed by pulpwood
recovered paper. based products (18 percent), plywood and veneer (4 percent)
In 2006, the largest share of import value was for paper products and logs and chips (2 percent). The actual shares of product
(49 percent), followed by wood products (32 percent), other volume imported are lower for lumber and plywood because
wood products (18 percent), and logs and chips (1 percent). about one-half of the roundwood used to make these products
would be left in the exporting country.
Export value increased a small amount overall between 1990
Export volume declined for all product groups between 1990
and 2006. The export value for paper and other wood increased
and 2006. Exports of lumber, plywood and veneer, and logs
modestly during the first half of the 1990s but has remained
and chips all decreased by more than 65 percent and pulpwood
steady since then. In contrast, the export value for both wood
based products decreased 1 percent. These declines occurred
products and logs and chips declined steadily between 1990
after increases from 1965 to 1990 (fig. 30-4).
and 2006. (fig. 30-2)
We now shift to data on imports and exports in terms of What has changed since 2003?
roundwood equivalent—the amount of wood needed to make Trends in imports and exports evident before 2003 have
various products. These estimates do not include roundwood 50
continued. Import value is stable to higher, export value is level
5.0
equivalent of imports and exports of recovered paper. 45

to declining, import volume is higher, and export volume is
4.5
40 4.0
trending lower.
Between 1990 and 2006, overall imports increased 67 percent—

35 3.5
from 2.6 to 4.3 billion cubic feet, and exports decreased 53 30 3.0
percent—from 1.8 to 0.8 billion cubic feet. Note that export Are25there important regional differences? 2.5
volume has decreased and export value has increased. In 2006, In 2005,
20 the largest share of export value of forest products 2.0
1.5
import volume is more than 400 percent larger than export (fig. 15
30-5) was from the South (44 percent), followed by the
1.0
volume (figs. 30-3 and 30-4). This margin is much greater than North 10 (31 percent), Pacific Northwest (13 percent), and other
0.5
the margin of import value over export value. West 5(12 percent). 0
0
65
Figure 30-1. Value of forest products imports by
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
Figure 30-2. Value of forest products exports by
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
product group, 1990–2006 (2005 dollars) (each lines Year
product group, 1990–2006
Wood products(2005Paper
dollars) (each lines
products
value is added to the line below). value is added to the line below). Logs and chips
Other wood
50 5.050 5.0
45 4.545 4.5
40 4.040 4.0

35 3.535 3.5
30 3.030 3.0
25 2.5 2.5
25
20 2.0 2.0
20
15 1.5 1.5
15
1.0 1.0
10 10
0.5 0.5
5 5
0 0
0 0
90 5
19 970
19 975
19 80
19 85
20 90
20 95
20 0
20 5
65
19 196
0500
0
1
2
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
9179
0119
0230
911
92
913
94
915
96
98
919
00
02
04
06
19
9
9
20 2
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
Year Lumber Year Plywood and veneer
Wood products Paper products Wood products
Pulpwood based products Paper
Logsproducts
and chips
Other wood Logs and chips Other wood Logs and chips
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Source:
50 5.0 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 30
45 4.5 25
eet (billions)

National 4.0 II–79 20
illions)
illions)
35 3.5
3.0 15
30
25
4.5 2.5
2005 dollar
Cubic fee
20
4.0 2.0
1.5

15
3.5
1.0
3.0
10
0.5
2.55
0
2.00
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
1.5
Figure 30-3. Imports of forest products in roundwood
90 Figure 30-4. Exports of forest products in roundwood
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1.0 Year
Year
equivalent (excluding
Woodpulp and
products recovered paper), 1965–
Paper products equivalent (excluding
Lumber pulp and recovered
Plywoodpaper),
and veneer
0.5 Pulpwood based products Logs and chips
2006 (each line’s value is added to
Other wood the
Logs andone
chipsbelow). 1965–2006 (each line is added to the one below).
0
50
5.0 5.0
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
3
04
05
06
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
45
4.5 4.5
20
20
20
Year
40
4.0 Lumber Plywood and veneer 4.0
Pulpwood based products Logs and chips
(billions)

3.5
feet (billions)
35
3.5
30
3.0
5.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
dollars
4.5
25
2.0
4.0
20 2.0
Cubic
1.5
1.5
3.5
15
2005
1.0 1.0
3.0
10
0.5 0.5
2.5 5
0
2.000
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
19 5
9270
9475
9680
9885
0090
02 5
04 0
06 5
1.5
906
20199
20200
20200
91
93
95
97
99
01
03
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
3
04
05
06
1919
1919
1919
1919
2019
00
191
Year
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
1.0 Year
Year
Lumber Plywood and veneer Lumber Plywood and veneer
0.5 Wood products Paper products Pulpwood based products Logs and chips
Pulpwood based products Logs and chips
Other wood Logs and chips Source: USDA Forest Service
0 USDA Forest Service
Source:
30
5.0
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
3
04
05
06
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
4.5 25
Year influenced by capital investment in new technology (Indicator
20
20
20

Figure 30-5. Lumber
Value of forest products exports
Plywood by region
and veneer
4.0
of customs districts, 1980–2005 (2005
Pulpwood based products Logs dollars).
and chips 6.34),
20 research and education (Indicator 6.35), and productivity
3.5
303.0 of 15
forests (Indicator 2.11).
252.5 10
2.0 5
20
1.5 Indicator 6.31. Value of Exports and Imports
0
151.0
of Nonwood Products
80
85
90
95
00
05
19
19
19
19
20
20
100.5 Year
0
5 What is North South
the indicator Pacific Northwest
and Other western
why is it important?
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
3
04
05
06
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
For many countries, international trade is a significant factor

00
Year0
20
20
20
Lumber Plywood and veneer

80
85
90
95
00
05
Pulpwood based products Logs and chips in commercial use of forests. Exports are, in some cases, a
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
North South Pacific Northwest Other western significant source of value for regional and national economies.
30
Source: USDA Forest Service Imports may either supplement or be a substitute for produc-
25
tion from domestic sources. The values and volumes of wood
20 product exports and imports are important because of the

Between 1990 and 2005:
15 increasing importance of global markets in determining prices
Value
10
for the North increased then stabilized above $6 in domestic markets, the sustainable use of domestic resources,
billion (2005 dollars) after 1999, and the profitability of domestic industries.
5
Value
0 for the South peaked in 1995 and has since declined,
What does the indicator show, and what has
80
85
90
95
00
05
Value for the Pacific NorthwestYear

declined steadily, and changed since 2003?
19
19
19
19
20
20
North South Pacific Northwest Other western

Value for the other West increased until about 1997 then The value of 12 types of exported nonwood forest products
stabilized at above $2 billion (2005 dollars). (fig. 31-1) increased from $332 to $457 million between 2003
and 2007 (all values adjusted for inflation and reported in 2005
Relation to other indicators dollars). The value of imports of the same products decreased
from $757 to $650 million between 2003 and 2007. Export
The levels and trends in this indicator are factors in sustaining
values may be underestimated as discussed below.
benefits from forests—employment and wages (Indicators 6.36
and 6.37), distribution of revenues (Indicator 6.40), and com- The nonwood forest products included in U.S. export data have
munity resiliency (Indicator 6.38). Exports and exports also long traditions of trade. Products that have become important in
influence level of harvest (Indicator 2.13). The level of exports export markets recently include wild edible fungi, mosses, and
and imports are determined by the competitiveness of U.S. lichens. For some species a distinction in data exists between
industries compared to foreign industries which, in turn, is wild and cultivated species. Pecans and cranberries are mostly

cultivated. Blueberries and ginseng maintain separate trade response to disturbances on which to base resource manage-
markets for wild and cultivated crops, with the wild crop being ment decisions. This lack of knowledge has been noted about
smaller and more valuable per unit of production. Some exports other wild-harvested nonwood products traded in commercial
such as American matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare), appear markets, such as floral greens and mushrooms.
to arise more from international demand than from U.S. market-
Figures 31-1 and 31-2 show the value of nonwood forest
ing efforts.
products exported from and imported to the U.S. exports listed
All internationally traded goods are classified with a six-digit in this report focus on nonwood products from species native
Harmonized Trade Code (HTC) number. Each Nation can then to North America, Included are native species growing wild
add four additional digits to track goods that are of special in forests, forest openings, and woodlands, products from
interest to that country. National export data can be used to select native species grown agriculturally, and select products
help assess domestic harvest and total trade for products where from native species growing in nonforest environments,
little other data are available. whether wild or domesticated. Some trade codes are so broad
that it is impossible to describe trade in specific species. For
For some products additional local export data exist that differ
example, fresh foliage and branches (HTC 0604.91.0000)
notably from national export data. The harvest and trade figures
covers many species, wild and domesticated, from forests and
for moss are a case in point. For moss harvests from the Pacific
agricultural lands. Some codes may include products that are
Northwest and the Appalachian regions there is a difference
grown in agroforestry environments, intentionally sown but
between moss harvests reflected in land management agency
allowed to grow in wild simulated environments, such as wild
permit data, and national moss and lichen export data. The
ginseng (HTC 1211.20.0040). A few codes are exclusive to
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management issued permits
wild-harvested nonwood forest products, such as fresh wild
for moss from 1997 to 2002 that averaged about 100,442
blueberries (HTC 0810.40.0024).
air-dry kg per year, with average annual permit revenues of
about $19,650. An examination of export permit data from The U.S. mushroom trade data since 2002 has split out the
1998 to 2003 showed 4.6 to 18.4 million air-dry kg per year most commonly domesticated mushrooms, including the white
were exported, with a value between $6 and $165 million per button mushroom common in grocery stores (Agaracus spp.),
year. These values are considerably higher than the national wood ears (Auricularia spp.), and jelly fungus (Tremella spp.).
export values of $4.2 million for 2003 and $0.8 million for Mushroom trade data in Figures 31-1 and 31-2 do not include
2007. In fact, the upper bound of the export value estimate these domesticated species, and can be assumed to be highly
($165 million) would place moss at the top of the list of export influenced by amounts of wild-harvested fungi such as morels
earners as opposed to the relatively minor position it holds in (Morchella spp.), chanterelles (Cantharellus spp.), American
the current export statistics. matsutake (Tricholoma magivelare), and various truffle species.
The discrepancies and range in the estimates illustrate how The top four exported nonwood forest products, in both 2003
little is known about the moss trade. Policymakers and land and in 2007 were (1) pecans, (2) foliage and branches, (3) wild
managers lack critical information about inventories and blueberries, and (4) wild ginseng. Values for all four increased
from 2003 to 2007.
Figure 31-1. Value of exports of selected nonwood forest products, 2003 and 2007 (millions of 2005 dollars).
2003 2007
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
s
ns
rie s
es
ed
ild
e te
l
oi
eg ,
ts
n
ffle
er nu
an
tm od
ru
in lfa
w
ch
rri
ls
he
ca
nu
at
ne
sy
be
eb e
nu o
oi
tru
nt su
be
ltiv
s,
an
Pe
lic
lu d g
d rw
Pi
e
nd
ot
in
ue
illa
cu
pe or
br
an eda
d
.b n
ro
(p
an
ra
an
bl
n
a
rn ,
e,
s,
tu od
Va
ng
ia
ex s
ve f c
ga
ild
s
iag
ot
es
m rie
ol
m
o
se
clo ls o
su
W
ro
s
gn
,w
iu r
l
oo
Fo
os
in be
in
ng
le
Pi
oi
hr
um
G
M
cc ran
ap
se
us
ial
G
M
va C
in
M
nt
G
se
Product
Es
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census
2003 2007
National II–81
300
The top four imported nonwood forest products in 2003 were Indicator 6.32. Exports as a share of wood
(1) vanilla beans, (2) pecans, (3) maple syrup products, and
(4) foliage and branches. The top four imports in 2007 were
and wood products production and imports
(1) pecans, (2) maple syrup products, (3) wild blueberries, and as a share of wood and wood products
(4) foliage and branches. Vanilla beans come primarily from consumption
Madagascar, and imports from that country dropped precipi-
tously since cyclone Hudda in 2003 devastated Madagascar’s What is the indicator and why is it important?
vanilla-growing regions. Imports for the other top imports
This indicator provides information on the relative importance
increased between 2003 and 2007.
of international trade in wood and wood products to domestic
Commerce in nonwood forest products has been small but production and consumption. This indicator is used to evaluate
regionally important for the U.S. economy for generations. the role of trade in the forest sector and thereby its effect on
International trade in species native to North America are influ- forest sustainability across social, economic, and ecological
enced by a number of factors, including globalization of labor dimensions.
markets,
180 movement of processing to countries with competitive
2003 2007
advantages
160 in processing, and changes in taste and style. When What does the indicator show?
one country
140 experiences an event that puts it at a disadvantage, The United States has become progressively more reliant on
such120as the cyclone in 2003 that affected Madagascar’s vanilla imports to meet consumption needs. In terms of roundwood
bean100growing areas, other regions or countries will hurry to equivalents, imports of wood and paper products as a share of
80
fill the gap, particularly if prices rise because of the shortage. consumption increased from 13 to 30 percent between 1965 and
60
International
40 trade in nonwood forest products likewise help 2005. During this same period there was initially a concurrent
determine
20 sustainable forest practices. Trade information must trend toward increasing exports as a share of production, which
be used0 along with other data, such as estimates of domestic reached a high in 1991, but these exports have since declined.
consumption, to assess effects on regions or countries.
ns
ns
rie s
es
ed
ild
e te
l
oi
eg ,
ts
he
ffle
er nu
an
tm od
ru
in lfa
Exports as a share of production increased from 5 percent in
w
s
rri
ls
he
ca
nu
at
ne
sy
nc
be
eb e
nu o
oi
tru
nt su
be
ltiv
s,
Pe
lic
lu d g
d rw
Pi
e
ra
nd
ot
in
ue
illa
cu
pe or
d
an eda
d
,b
.b n
1965 to a high of 16 percent in 1991 then decreased to 10 percent

ro
(p
an
ra
an
bl
n
a
rn ,
s,
tu od
Va
ge
ng
ia
ex s
ve f c
ga
ild
s
ot
s
m rie
ol
m
se
lia
o
se
clo ls o
su
W
ro
gn in 2006 (fig. 32-1).
,w
iu r
oo
Fo
os
in be
in
ng
le
Pi
oi
hr
um
G
M
cc ran
ap
se
us
ial
G
M
va C
in
M
nt
G
se
Product
Es
Figure 31-2. Value of imports of selected nonwood forest products, 2003 and 2007 (millions of 2005 dollars).
2003 2007
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
s
es
ed
ild
ls
l
oi
O
ts
no
n
ffle
an
rie
an
ze
rie
oo
oi
iu
,w
S
ch
he
nu
at
ne
r
fro
c
be
cin
d
NE
or
tru
e
be
ltiv
an
Pe
lic
tin
ts
Pi
e
ar
or
d
in
ue
or
lla
o
cu
br
r,
en
d
ed
Va
de
ro
sh
(p
ga
an
ni
an
bl
sh
e,
rp
c
s,
en
Va
fre
s
lia
ng
su
ild
s
iag
fre
ot
s
of
tu
m
bl
o
se
en
se
s,
ro
e
gn
ils
oo
l
,
Fo
l
p,
os
ed
fle
ap
in
o
ng
Pi
hr
ru
G
of
M
uf
ri
ial
se
us
sy
er
Tr
its
nt
b
in
M
le
u
se
an
G
Fr
ap
Es
Cr
Product
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census

The sustained increase of the overall import share to the Are
35 there important regional differences?
historically high level of 30 percent is due largely to growth in 14
Data
30 are not available for interstate imports and exports for
the softwood lumber import share, which reached a level of 38 12
U.S.
25 regions, so import and export shares cannot be provided
percent in 2006. The overall import share is up from 15 percent 10
by 20
U.S. regions. It is possible, however, to roughly estimate
Percent
in 1965. The import share for other products was relatively 8
Percent
which
15 regions are net importers of wood and paper products,
stable between 1965 and the 1990s, but has since also increased 6
in roundwood
10 equivalent, if we assume that consumption 4
(figs. 32-2 and 32-3).
per35capita
5
is uniform across regions. In terms of roundwood 14
2
The trend in overall export share of production, an increase equivalent,
30
0
of the four Resource Planning Act (RPA) Regions, 0
12
then a decline, is because of initial increases and subsequent only
25 the U.S. South is a net exporter of wood and paper
65
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
10
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
declines for softwood lumber, softwood plywood, and paper products (fig. 32-6). Year
Percent
20 8
Cubic feet (billions) Percent

Imports as a share of consumption
and paperboard. For hardwood lumber the share has continued 15 Exports as a share of production 6
12
to increase, and for pulp the share increased then leveled off Why
10 can’t the entire indicator be reported at
45 4
10
after the mid-1990s. (figs. 32-4 and 32-5). this
5 time?
40 2
35 8
0
It is300not clear if data on value of wood and paper industry ship- 6
65
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
Percent
ments
25 covers the same range of products as the value of wood
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year 4
The overall trends in import share (increasing) and export share and20paper imports andImports
exports,
as a so import
share and export shares on
of consumption
2
15 Exports as a share of production
(decreasing) that appeared before 2003 have continued through a value basis have not been provided. 12
0
10
45
2006. 10

5
40
0
35 8
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
30
Figure 32-1. Wood and paper products imports as Figure 32-3. Pulp, paper, andYearboard imports as a share 6
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Percent
25
a share of consumption, and exports as a share of of consumption, 1965–2006 (tons imported
Softwood lumber per ton
Hardwood lumber 4
20 SW plywood OSB and waferboard
production, 1965–2006 (on volume basis in roundwood consumed). 2
15
equivalents). 45
10 0
35 40
5
14
35
0
30
30
12
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Percent
25 25 Year
10
Softwood lumber Hardwood lumber
Percent
20 20
Percent
35
15 15
6
14
10
45
10
30 45
40
12
5
25 20
35
10
0
30
5
5
Percent
0
20
65 96
70 97
75 97
80 98
85 98
90 99
95 99
00 00
05 00
8
Percent
Percent
19 1
19 1
19 1
19 1
19 1
19 1
19 1
20 2
20 2
25 Year
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
15 Paper and board Pulp

19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year 6
20 Year
10 Imports as a share of consumption Source: USDA Forest Service Paper and board Pulp
4
15
Exports as a share of production 14
5 USDA Forest Service
Source: 2
12
10
45 12
0 05
10
40 10
Figure 32-2. Wood products imports as a share of 0
Figure 32-4. Wood products exports as a share of
65 5
70 0
75 5
80 0
85 5
90 0
95 5
00 0
05 5
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
8
19 196
19 197
19 197
19 198
19 198
19 199
19 199
20 200
20 200
35
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
consumption, 1965–2006 (cubic units imported per 8
production, 1965–2006 (cubicYear
units exported per cubic
Percent
30 Imports as a share of consumption 6 Paper and board

Year Pulp
cubic
25 unit consumed). unit4 6produced).
Percent
Exports as a share of production Paper and board Pulp

12
20
45 4
2
10
15 142
40
10 012
8
35 0 North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
5
30 Region
610
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
Percent
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
0
25 Consumption Year Production
48
Percent
Softwood lumber Hardwood lumber

65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year 26 SW plywood OSB and waferboard

15 Softwood lumber Hardwood lumber
10 04
SW plywood OSB and waferboard North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
5 2 Region
45
0 Consumption Production
0
40
5
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
6
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
35 Year
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
30 Softwood lumber Hardwood lumber Softwood lumber Hardwood lumber
SW plywood OSB and waferboard
Percent

Source: USDA Forest Service Source: USDA Forest Service
20
45
15
40
National
10
35 Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 II–83
5
30
ent
0
25
Relation to other indicators Indicator 6.33. Recovery or recycling of
The level and trend in wood and paper export share of con- forest products as a percent of total forest
sumption are a key factor in sustaining certain benefits from products consumption
forests—benefits of employment and wages (Indicators 6.36
and 6.37), benefits in revenue to various groups (Indicator 6.40),
and contribution to community resiliency (Indicator 6.38).
Level and trend in import share of production also has an influ- This indicator identifies the extent to which forest products
ence on the same indicators but in a direction opposite from are recycled or reused and provides a measure of the national
export share. For example—for a given level on wood products efficiency of forest products usage. Recovered products are an
consumption in the United States increased export share would important raw material for many forest products industries and
increase employment and wages and increase import share some industries outside the wood products sector. Recycling
would decrease employment and wages. The level of export forest products reduces the quantity of waste deposited in land
and import shares are determined by the competitiveness of fills or incinerated and enables a country to increase consump-
U.S. industries in relation to foreign industries which, in turn, tion of wood products without an increase in timber harvesting.
is influenced—in the long run—by the level capital investment With increased recycling and stable exports timber harvest and
in new technology (Indicator 6.34), by levels of research and timber prices would decrease.
education in the United States (Indicator 6.35), and by the Key sources of post-consumer wood and paper materials that
productivity of U.S. forests (Indicator 6.11). are recovered for reuse in products include paper and paper-
board, wood pallets, construction waste, demolition waste, and
Figure 32-5. Paper and paperboard, and pulp exports wood and paper in municipal solid waste. For this indicator
as a share of production, 1965–2006 (tons exported per recovered amounts do not include amounts of waste wood and
ton produced). paper that are used for energy.
14 Two basic measures are used for this indicator:
12
10
The recovery rate is the amount of wood or paper recovered
8
for reuse in products (includes exports) divided by the
Percent
6
amount of source products consumed in a year.
4 The utilization rate is the amount of wood or paper recov-
2
ered divided by the amount of products produced in a year.
14
0
The utilization rate indicates the degree to which use of
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
00
05
12
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
10
Year
Paper and board
Pulp
recovered wood or paper holds down or substitutes for use of
Source:
8 USDA Forest Service virgin wood in U.S. production of wood and paper products.
Percent
12
6
10
4
Figure
8 32-6. Wood and paper products consumption What does the indicator show?
2
and6 production by region in roundwood equivalents, The recovered paper utilization rate increased from 22 to 38
0
2006
4
(billions of cubic feet) (Regional consumption is percent between 1970 and 1996, but then stabilized at 37 to
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
00
05
estimated by assuming national per capita consumption 38 percent between 1996 and 2006 (fig. 33-1). In contrast the
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
2 Year
of 63.5 cubic feet is uniform
Paper andacross
board regions).
Pulp recovery rate for paper and paperboard increased from 22 per-
0
12
Region
cent in 1970 to 45 percent in 1999 and then continued to rise
10 to 51 percent in 2006. In the past decade, the recovery rate has
Consumption Production
8 continued to increase although the utilization rate has leveled
00
05
20
r 6 off because almost all the increase in recovery since 1996 has
ard 4 gone to exports. Exports of recovered paper increased from
2 3 percent in 1970 to 18 percent and then nearly doubled since
0 1999, rising to 34 percent in 2006. For the purpose of compari-
North South
Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
Region son, in 1999 the total consumption of paper and paper products
Consumption Production by all developed countries was 252 million tons annually, and
their average recovery rate was 43 percent.
00
05
20
r
ard

00
05
20
The utilization rate of recovered wood products (for reuse What has changed since 2003?
as wood products) is uncertain because of incomplete data.
U.S. recovery of paper is has increased from 45 percent in
We estimate the amount of recovered wood that is reused for
1999 to 51 percent in 2006 with virtually all of the increasing
products to include all recycled wood pallets and one-half of
recovery share going for exports.
the wood recovered from municipal solid waste. We further
assume that: (1) the other half of wood from municipal solid
waste (MSW) is used for fuel or uses that do not displace Are there important regional differences?
wood products use; (2) wood recovered from demolition and Total U.S. recovered paper consumed at U.S. mills increased
construction sites goes for uses (e.g., fuel or mulch) that do not by 2 percent between 2003 and 2006, from 33.7 to 34.5 million
displace wood products use; (3) the amounts of wood recycled tons. Industry reported data indicate recovered paper consump-
via deconstruction are still small; and (4) recovered amounts tion increased in mills in every region except the North. In
are all used in the United States with no exports. With these 2006 the South had the highest recovered paper consumption
60
assumptions the estimated recovered wood utilization rate has (15.4 million tons) but the lowest recovered paper utilization
increased from an insignificant amount in 1990 to 10 percent in rate50(29 percent). The next highest level of consumption was in
2006 (fig. 33-2). The recovered wood utilization rate for wood the40North (13.4 million tons) where the utilization rate was
Percent
pallets alone has increased from 2 percent in 1993 to 34 percent (5030percent), followed by the Pacific Coast (4.8 million tons
in 2000 and 38 percent in 2006. and20a 49 percent utilization rate) and the Rocky Mountains
(1.2
10million tons, where utilization rate was highest [59 percent])
Figure 33-1. Paper and paperboard recovery rate, (fig.0 33-3).
utilization rate, and share of recovered paper that is
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year
exported, 1970–2006. Why can’t the Recovery
entirerate indicator be reported at
Utilization rate
60 this time? Share of recovered paper that is exported
50 Data
45 are not available on the amount of wood reused for
40 products
40 from demolition and construction sites and from
deconstruction of building. We have assumed amounts are
Percent
30
60 35
Percent utilization
20 currently
30 small. Value of recovered material, except for grades
50
10 of 25
recovered paper, are not available on a national scale.
40 20
Percent
0
30 15
Relation to other indicators
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
10
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20 Year
Recovery rate The5recycling rates (utilization rates) for wood and paper
10 Utilization rate
Share of recovered paper that is exported influence
0 the amounts and kinds of wood that is harvested in
0
the United States (Indicator 2.13) and the effect of the harvest
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
Sources: USDA Forest Service and American Forest and Paper Association
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
45 Year
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Year Recovered wood utilization rate

40 Recovery rate
Recovered paper utilization rate
Figure
35 33-2. Recovered wood and paper utilization
Utilization rate Figure 33-3. Recovered paper utilization rate by
Total recovered wood and paper utilization rate
region,
Share of recovered paper that is exported
Percent utilization
rates,
30 separately and combined, 1990–2006. 2006.
25
45 70
20
40
60
15
35
Percent utilization
10
30 50
25
5
20
0 40
Percent
15
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year 30
10
Recovered wood utilization rate
5 Recovered paper utilization rate 20
0 Total recovered wood and paper utilization rate
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
10
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year70
Recovered wood utilization rate 0
Recovered paper utilization rate North South Rocky Pacific U.S.
60 Mountain Coast average
Total recovered wood and paper utilization rate
Sources: USDA Forest Service and American Forest and Paper Association Region
50
70 Sources: USDA Forest Service and American Forest and Paper Association
40
Percent
60
30
50
20
II–85
40
rcent
10
treatments on forest growth (Indicator 2.11). To the extent that make forest recreation possible. On the national level,
that recycling decreases harvest jobs, income, and revenue to investments into public recreation facilities include those made
landowners is affected (Indicator 6.36, 6.37, and 6.40). These by the Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior
rates also influence the amounts of carbon stored in forests National Park Service (NPS). For 2009 the Forest Service
(Indicator 5.22), the length of time carbon is stored in products budgeted $405 million in capital improvement and maintenance
(Indicator 5.23), and the energy that is obtained by burning costs, which is an 8-percent decrease from 2008 ($474 million).
post-consumer wood and paper (Indicator 5.24). The degree NPS expenditures on facility maintenance increased from $389
to which recovered paper is recycled in the United States million in 2006 to $393 million in 2007, and are budgeted for
rather than being exported depends on price competiveness. $461 million in 2008.
This competitiveness is determined in part by the amount of
Private capital investment in forest recreation infrastructure
U.S. investment in capital (Indicator 6.34) and in research and
was estimated for businesses that provide forest recreation
education (Indicator 6.35).
services and those that provide the equipment, which makes
forest recreation possible. In 2006, total capital expenditures
within the forest recreation sector were an estimated $1.47
Indicator 6.34. Value of capital investment
billion, with $1.03 billion toward structures and $442 million in
and annual expenditure in forest equipment expenditures. These expenditures are approximately
management, wood and nonwood product 8.5 percent of total expenditures in the leisure industry.
industries, forest-based environmental In 2006, NPS concessions provided an estimated $48.3 million
services, recreation, and tourism in the form of franchise fees paid to NPS and in the form of
facility improvements for national parks, with $21.6 million
What is the indicator and why is it important? of this being solely dedicated to facility improvements. As
much as 90 percent of the fees and improvements may support
This indicator measures investments made to maintain and
forest-based recreation.
enhance the ability of forests to produce goods and services
for the benefit of a Nation’s economy and people. Sustainable Capital investment in wood products industries decreased from
forest management is not possible in the long run without $3.4 billion in 1997 to $2.2 billion in 2003 but increased to
regular investments. When capacities to protect, manage, and $3.5 billion in 2006 (all in 2005 dollars) (fig. 34-2). Capital
use forests erode, through lack of funding, the benefits that investment in paper products industries declined more—from
forests provide also decline. $10.2 billion in 1997 to $5.3 billion in 2004 but increased to
$7.4 billion in 2006 (all in 2005 dollars). Capital investment in
What does the indicator show? the wood furniture industry was $837 million in 1997 and $873
million in 2002. Capital investment in logging industry was
Capital investment toward protecting and managing forests
$0.9 billion in 1997 (2005). More recent data from U.S. Bureau
includes investment in facilities, roads, and trails by the Forest
of Census is not available.
Service, which was $501 million in 2005 and $390 million in
2007 (adjusted for inflation and expressed in 2005 dollars). Annual expenditures for payroll and materials by the wood
Annual expenditures for Forest Service programs for national products industries decreased between 1997 and 2003 about
forests and grasslands decreased between 2004 and 2007 from 9 percent from $82 to $75 billion then increased to $84 billion
$3.0 to $2.7 billion and expenditures for wildfire management in 2006 (2005 dollars). Annual expenditures for payroll and
increased from $1.7 to $2.1 billion (all in 2005 dollars). materials for paper product industries decreased 15 percent
from 1997 to 2003 from $121 to $104 billion then increased
Total annual expenditures for State forestry agency programs to $107 billion in 2006 (in 2005 dollars).
have been about the same in 1998, 2002, and 2004 at $2.0 to
$2.2 billion (2005 dollars) (fig. 34-1). During this time State What has changed since 2003?
expenditures increased for States in the Pacific Southwest
Annual capital investment in wood and paper industries
and Pacific Northwest Regions by 27 percent after inflation,
declined 40 percent between 1997 and 2004 and increased 34
primarily in California, and decreased in the Northern Region
percent between 2004 and 2006. In contrast annual expen-
mostly as a result of an urban forestry expense in 1998 in New
ditures for payroll and materials remained relatively stable
Hampshire not present in 2002 or 2004.
between 1997 and 2006 (in 2005 dollars).
Capital investment in forest recreation and tourism are made
In recent developments, during 2007 and early 2008, the U.S.
by a variety of entities on both public and private land, and for
Department of Energy (DOE) announced grants of up to $585.3
infrastructure for businesses that provide the goods and services

million for capital costs to build 13 commercial or demonstration Rocky Mountains (8 percent). Between 1997 and 2006 the
cellulosic liquid biofuels plants. Six of the plants—with DOE share of total U.S. annual capital investment in wood and paper
capital funding up to $230.3 million—will use wood biomass product industries ranged from 35 to 49 percent in the North,
or wood pulp extract as feedstock. Additional funds will be 36 to 43 percent in the South, 11 to 15 percent in the Pacific
invested by individual businesses. In addition to the DOE funded Coast, and 3 to 9 percent for the Rocky Mountain Region (fig.
plants, three other wood based biofuels plants are being prepared. 34-3). The share increased from 11 to 15 percent for the Pacific
All together these wood-based plants expect to use 2,300 tons Coast Region and decreased for the North and South Regions.
per day or more of wood biomass (720,000 tons per year). The regional shares of annual payroll and material expenses
have been a little more stable and are highest in the North and
Are there important regional differences? South, 39 percent, 38 percent, respectively, followed by the
Pacific Coast (15 percent), and Rocky Mountains (7 percent)
The regional share of U.S. expenditures for State forestry agency
(fig. 34-4).
programs in 2004 is highest for the Pacific Coast (54 percent),
followed by the South (21 percent), North (16 percent), and
Figure 34-1. Annual State forestry program this time?
expenditures and costs by region, 1998, 2002, 2004 Capital expenditure and annual expense data are not available
for a number of entities that protect and manage forests, includ-
2,500
ing7,000
county and local governments, conservation organizations,
2,000 and6,000
certain corporate land owners (e.g., TIMOs, REITs).

5,000
1,500
Figure
4,000 34-3. Capital expenditure in wood products and
1,000 paper
3,000products industries by region, 1997, 2002–2006
2,500
500 (millions
2,000 of 2005 dollars).
7,000
2,500
2,000 6,000
(millions)
(millions)
1,000
7,000
0 5,000
Rocky Pacific Total 1,500
2,000 North South 0
6,000
(millions)
(millions)
Mountain Coast North South Pacific Rocky

4,000 Coast Mountain
Region 5,000
2005 dollars
2005 dollars
1,000
1,500 Region
1998 2002 2004 3,000
4,000 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: National Association of State Foresters 2,000
2005 dollars
2005 dollars
2,500
500
1,000 3,000
7,000
14,000 90,000
1,000
2,000
Figure 0 34-2. Capital expenditure in forest products
500
2,000 6,000
dollars (millions)
(millions)
North South Rocky Pacific Total 80,000

0
industries, 1955–2006 (millions of 2005 Coast
Mountain dollars) (data Pacific Rocky 1,000 North South
(millions)
12,000 5,000
70,000
1,500
0 Region Coast Mountain
after 1996 useNorth NAICS (North
South American
Rocky
1998 Mountain
2002
Industry
Pacific
2004
Total
North South
Region
Pacific Rocky
0
4,000
60,000
Coast 1997 2002 2003 2004
Coast 2005 2006
dollars
Classification
1,000
10,000 System) industryRegion codes). Mountain
(millions)
3,000
50,000 Region
dollars
1998 2002 2004 2,000 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
14,000
500 40,000
90,000
2005 dollars2005
2005
8,000 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census

30,000
1,000
80,000
2005
14,0000 90,000
(millions)
12,000 North South Rocky Pacific Total 20,000

0
70,000
6,000
Mountain Coast Figure
80,000 34-4.
10,000
60,000
Payroll andSouth
North material costs
Pacificfor woodRocky
Coast
and
Mountain
(millions)
12,000 Region
10,000 paper
70,000products industries by region, Region 1997, 2002–2006
(millions)
4,000 1998 2002 2004 50,0000

1997 2002 South
2003 2004
Pacific 2005 2006
2005 dollars
(millions North
60,000 of 2005 dollars). Rocky
10,000
(millions)
8,000 50,000 Region

2005 dollars
2,000
14,000 90,000
30,000
1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2005 dollars
40,000
8,000 80,000
20,000
6,000 30,000
0
12,000
2005 dollars
70,000
10,000
20,000
05
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
6,000
4,000 60,0000
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
10,000 10,000 North South Pacific Rocky

Year

4,000 Lumber and wood products Wood products 2 0 Region
2,000 40,000 North South Pacific Rocky
8,000 Paper and allied products Paper products 2 1997 2002 2003 2004
Coast 2005 2006
Mountain
Wood furniture Wood furniture 2 30,000 Region
2,000
0 20,000 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
6,000
05
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
0 10,000
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Year 4,000 0
05
5
Pacific North South Rocky

5
Lumber and wood products Wood products 2

20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Coast Mountain
Year
Paper and allied products Paper products 2 Region
2,000 Lumberfurniture
and wood products Wood
Wood Wood products
furniture 22 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Paper and of
Source: U.S. Department allied Paper products 2
productsBureau of Census
Commerce, Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census
0 Wood furniture Wood furniture 2
05
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20

Year II–87
Lumber and wood products Wood products 2
Paper and allied products Paper products 2
Capital and annual expense data are not available by region for What does the indicator show?
forest based recreation and tourism. Data specifically on capital
Forest resource management-related research and development
and annual expenses for providing forest-based environmental
efforts are centered in the Forest Service, in universities, and
services are not available although some cited total expenses
in industry, with additional efforts by other agencies and
by the Forest Service and State forestry agencies support these
nongovernmental organizations. Forest Service funding for
services.
research, including construction, and net of inflation, has
increased from $259 million in 2000 to $326 million in 2008
Relation to other indicators (both in year 2005 dollars) although funding has been relatively
The levels and trends in capital investment and annual operat- constant above $300 million per year (2005 dollars) since 2002
ing expenses are key factors in sustaining benefits of all types (fig. 35-1).
from forests—from wood products (Indicators 6.25 and 6.28),
Forest Service publications (including those in peer reviewed
from nonwood products (Indicators 6.26 and 6.29), from
journals) have increased from 1,886 in 1981, to 2,718 in 1998,
recreation (Indicators 6.41, 6.42, and 6.43), and for environ-
and most recently to 3,182 in 2007.
mental services (Indicator 6.27). Levels of capital investment
and operation expenses also influence the competitiveness Funding available for forestry research at universities that
of U.S. wood and nonwood products firms in comparison to receive Federal funding increased from $256 million in 2000
foreign firms (Indicators 6.30, 6.31, and 6.32). Levels of capital to $282 million in 2006 (2005 dollars). Funding in 2006 was
investment also influence levels of employment (Indicator 6.36), highest in the North ($92 million), followed by the South ($84
wages (Indicator 6.37) and community resilience (Indicator 6.38). million), Pacific Coast ($65 million), and the Rocky Mountains
($39 million) (fig. 35-2).
Indicator 6.35. Annual investment and Figure 35-1. USDA Forest Service Research and
expenditure in forest-related research, Development appropriations, 1995–2008 (millions of
2005 dollars).
extension and development, and education
350
300
250
Capital investments and annual operating expenditures on 200
forest-related education, research and development increase 150
human capital. Funds invested in communicating the results 350
100
of research and development to practitioners and the public 300
50
2005 dollars (millions) 2005 dollars (millions)
build awareness, and hopefully support, for sustainable forest 250

0
management. These investments and expenditures increase
95
96
97
98
99
00
1
02
03
04
05
06
7
08
200
00
00
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
2
knowledge and skills and, over time, increase a country’s 150 Year
USDA Forest Service appropriation
ability to practice sustainable forest management. 100
50
300
Research and development, extension, and education areas
include all disciplines that influence forest resource manage- Figure
2500 35-2. Forestry research funding at U.S. universities
that are partially funded by the USDA National Institute of
95
96
97
98
99
00
1
02
03
04
05
06
7
08
00
00
ment decision making. Forests in the United States are

19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
200
2
Food and Agriculture by ResourceYear Planning Act Region,

threatened by fragmentation, invasive species, the effects of 150 USDA Forest Service appropriation
1995–2006 (millions of 2005 dollars).
climate change, and the disconnect of our children and increas- 100
300
ingly urban populations from the natural world. Forest related
50
education and extension, and the communication of research 250

0
and development to both forestry practitioners and the general 200
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
public can build awareness and support for sustainable forest

19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
150
Year
management. Thus, it is critical to examine the level of funds 100 Notrth South Pacific Coast Rocky Mountain
invested annually toward forest-related education, extension,
50
and research and development.
0
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Notrth South Pacific Coast Rocky Mountain
Source: USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Forest industry also provides funding for both internal and ex- Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at
ternal research. The Agenda 2020 is a key Federal and industry this time?
partnership that provides funds from the Federal Government
Investment in forest education for primary school-aged
and industry for research on a wide range of topics, including
children is important for this indicator but a forestry-specific,
improved fiber recovery and use, decreasing capital costs,
nationwide data set was not found. Information is not available
reducing environmental effect, the forest biorefinery, and
on funding for forestry related research and education from
improved housing systems. Funding for 2003 was about $30
other Federal sources, such as U.S. Department of the Interior
million each from industry and the Federal Government.
or National Aeronautics and Space Administration, nor are data
Additional sources of funding for forestry research are available, available funds for research done by many NGOs.
from other Federal sources and nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs).
Indicator 6.36. Employment in Forest
Baccalaureate, masters, and doctorate degrees awarded in forest
science programs decreased 20 percent from 2,263 in 2001 to
Products sector
1,810 in 2006. During that period, the number of baccalaureate
degrees decreased 28 percent, doctorate degrees decreased 15 What is the indicator and why is it important?
percent, and master’s degrees increased almost 4 percent. Employment attributable to forests is one measure of the social
and economic importance of forests. It includes employment
In 2007, funding appropriated through the Renewable Resourc-
that is both forest-based and forest-related. Employment is
es Extension Act for forest stewardship and health extension
a tangible and widely understood measure of economic and
programs, resulted in 1,495 education events nationwide, the
social well being.
development of 1,574 stewardship plans, and affected more
than 12 million acres.
Forest Service Conservation Education activities and programs, Jobs in the forest products industries decreased by about 15
which are funded from numerous sources within and external percent between 1997 and 2006, falling from 1.51 to 1.29
to the Forest Service, reached 4,400,000 people in FY 2006. million jobs. Job declines included 21 percent for forestry and
35 percent of those reached came from urban areas, 10 percent logging, 6 percent for solidwood products, 28 percent for pulp
were underserved, and 33 percent were youth and their educa- and paper, and 3 percent for wood furniture (fig. 36-1). Within
tors. FY 2006 data indicate a significant increase over previous the furniture category nonupholstered wood furniture decreased
years for the number of activities conducted, audiences 44 percent from 127,703 to 71,544 jobs and architectural
reached, partnerships developed and improved, and total dollars
spent, although these data are collected from a voluntary,
Figure 36-1. Number of employees in forest products
self-reporting database (table 35-1).
industries, 1997–2006.
Forest resource education is also provided by public schools, 1.8 30
and by a wide range of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). 25
1.6
Employees (thousands)
1.4 20
Employees (millions)
1.2 15
The amount of funds available for forest research since 2003
1.0
has increased both for Federal and university research. In the 10
same time period, the amount of forest science degrees awarded 0.8 5
has decreased by 20 percent. 0.6 0
0.4
Table 35-1. Level of Forest Service Conservation
Education activities and dollars spent, 2004–2006. 0.2
2004 2005 2006 0

Number of activities 655 1,007 1,335 600
00
3
98
99
05
01
04
97
06
0
0
20
20
19
19
20
20
20
20
19
20
Audience reached 2,100,000 982,000 4,400,000 Year

Number of partnerships 641 825 1,578 Wood furniture (parts of NAICS 337) Wood products (NAICS 321) 500
Total spent (millions of 2005 dollars) 8.3 9.7 17.9 Paper products (NAICS 332) Forestry and logging (NAICS 113)
NAICS = National American Industry Classification System. 400
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census
300
200
100
woodwork and millwork increased 31 percent from 24,390 The number of jobs associated with forest-based recreation is
to 32,033 jobs. Forestry and logging jobs had been relatively uncertain. For 2006, we estimate about 551,000 forest-based
constant between 1986 and 1996. recreation jobs. An increase may be inferred by the increase
in participation in U.S. forest recreation. To underscore the
In 2006, 74 percent of forest industry jobs noted above were in
uncertainty of this estimate, we note that the estimate for the
the wood products and paper products industries (536,094 and
2003 report made using different methods was 1.1 million
414,049 jobs, respectively). Combined, they were 1.1 percent
direct forest-based recreation jobs. For 2005, direct jobs
of all U.S. jobs and 7.1 percent of manufacturing jobs. This
associated with recreation on national forests are estimated to
number of jobs is down from 824,000 and 485,000 jobs in 1950
be 97,600 jobs.
when combined they were 2.5 percent of all jobs and 8.6 percent
of manufacturing jobs. Jobs in producing nonwood forest products, including
medicinals, food and forage species, floral and horticultural
Jobs in forest management and protection include: species, resins and oils, arts and crafts, and game animals and
Permanent Forest Service, National Forest System jobs, furbearers probably number in the tens of thousands. Many, if
which have declined from 30,632 jobs in 1991, to 24,605 not most jobs, are in informal businesses whose characteristics
jobs in 2000, and 22,867 jobs in 2006 (fig. 36-2); are not recorded in Bureau of Census surveys. Two exceptions.
The sector Forest Nurseries and gathering of forest products
Permanent
1.8 employees in State forestry agencies—which 30
included 231 businesses in 2006 with 2,098 employees. The
has been about constant between 1998 (15,836) and 2004
1.6 sector
25hunting and trapping included 348 establishments with
(15,455) (fig. 36-3);
1.4 1,87520employees in 2006. These jobs have decreased from
Total State agency employees which have increased by 2,702 in 2002.
Employees (millions)
1.2 15
about 2000 after including temporary employees—22,269 in
Jobs in forest related education and research include those at
1998
1.0 to 24,507 in 2004; 10
colleges and universities and research jobs include those in the
Employees
0.8 in Department of Interior agencies that manage Forest5 Service. For the 2003 report, we estimated 1,361 jobs in
forests
0.6 was about the same level in 2007 (43,085) as in 1998 forest0related education and research for 2001. Jobs at Forest
North South Rocky Pacific Total
(44,003);
0.4
and Service research stations have decreased
Mountain from 2,469 in 1991, to
Coast
An a low of 1,708 in 2000, and wereRegion

1,760 in 2006. For the 2003
0.2 undetermined number in county and municipal govern-
ments, private land management organizations, private report, we estimated 1241998
industry research
2002 jobs
2004for 2001. In
0
consultants, and private forest-resource related organizations. addition there are an undetermined number of forest resource
600
00
03
98
99
02
05
01
04
97
education jobs within private associations and organizations.

06
20
20
19
19
20
20
20
20
19
20
Year
Nationwide, firefighting and supportWood jobs products
during fire season 500
Wood furniture (parts of NAICS 337) (NAICS 321) Total forest-related direct jobs are estimated to be close to 3 million
have ranged between
(NAICS12,000 to 15,000 jobsand
in recent years. 113)
Paper products 332) Forestry logging (NAICS

or about 2 percent of all U.S. employment. This number does
Many such jobs are temporary and excluded from the number 400
not include indirect jobs generated by expenditures of govern-
of permanent employees in figures 36-2 and 36-3.
ment agencies,
300 businesses, or others.
200
Figure 36-2. USDA Forest Service permanent Figure 36-3. Permanent and temporary State forestry
employees by branch, 1992–2006. agency100employees, by region, 1998, 2002, and 2004
40 (State data missing: 2002—PA and NV; 2004—OH, ME,
IL, and 0AR).
35 North South Pacific Rocky
1.8 30 Coast Mountain
Region
(millions)(thousands)
30
1.6 25 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
25
1.4 20
20
1.2
Employees
15
15
1.0 10
10
Employees
0.8 5
5
0.6 0
0 North South Rocky Pacific Total
0.4 Mountain Coast
91
92
95
96
93
94
97
98
05
06
99
00
03
04
01
02
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
Year Region
0.2Washington Office total Research stations
1998 2002 2004
Northern Area of State and Private Forestry National forests Source: National Association of State Foresters
0
600
00
03
98
02
05
01
04
97
06
9
20
20
19
19
20
20
20
20
19
20
Year
II–90 Wood furniture (parts of NAICS 337) Wood products (NAICS 321) 500 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
sands)
Paper products (NAICS 332) Forestry and logging (NAICS 113)

400
What has changed since 2003? forest-related education and research jobs at colleges and
universities nor for forest related jobs in county and municipal
Jobs in forest products industries have declined considerably—
governments, private land management organizations, private
by 167,995 or 12 percent between 2001 and 2006.
consultants, and private forest-resource related organizations.

Relation to other indicators
In 2006, forest products industry employment (number of jobs
The levels of employment are a factor in the resilience of forest-
excluding wood furniture) was highest in the North (400,000),
based communities (Indicator 38) and in the importance of
followed by the South (341,000), Pacific Coast (130,000), and
forests to people (Indicator 44). Employment levels are influenced
Rocky Mountains (73,000) (fig. 36-4). Between 2001 and 2006
by capital investment (Indicator 34) and education and research
these jobs decreased in the North, South, and Pacific Coast but
(Indicator 35). Employment levels in forest products industries
increased in the Rocky Mountain Region. Forestry and logging
are also influenced by competition from imported forest products,
jobs in 2006 were highest in the South (36,013), followed by the
as indicated by trends in imports as a proportion of U.S. con-
Pacific Coast (14,538), North (11,839) and Rocky Mountains
sumption (Indicator 32).
(3,914).
In 2004, total employment in State forestry agencies was high-

est in the Pacific Coast (6121 permanent and 3109 temporary) Indicator 6.37. Average wage rates, annual
followed by the North (2,791 permanent and 4,320 temporary), average income, and annual injury rates in
the South (5492 permanent and 1,043 temporary), and Rocky major forest employment categories
Mountains (1,051 permanent and 581 temporary). Between
1998 and 2004 State forestry agency seasonal and temporary
jobs increased for the North (more than doubled), and for the
Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountains, but declined for the South. Wages, income and injury rates are measures of the quality of
employment. Wages and income are indicators of the economic
returns to workers in forest-based and forest-related enterprises.
Decreasing injury rates may reflect improved occupational
this 30
time?
health and safety and employment quality, which provide both
Little25
data are available on jobs in producing nonwood forest personal and community social benefits.
products because many businesses are very small and part of

20
the informal economy, which has casual hiring practices and
nonreported
15 income.
Average annual incomes related to forest management and pro-
10
Data are not available on jobs related specifically to the provision tection employment includes the salaries of full time permanent
of environmental
5 services such as carbon storage, biodiversity, employees of the Forest Service which have increased from a
or water
0
supply. Updated data are likewise not available on median of $41,300 in 1992 to $48,200 in 2000, and to $50,500
Mountain Coast in 2006 (all figures are adjusted for inflation and expressed in
Figure 36-4. Employees in products wood
Regionand paper 2005 dollars).
industries (NAICS [North
1998American
2002Industry Classification
2004
System] 321, 322) by region, 1997, 2002–2006. Salaries of full-time permanent employees in State forestry
600 agencies in 1998, for entry-level foresters, ranged from a high
05
06
20
20
of $48,000 for the Pacific Coast, $39,000 in the North, $35,000

CS 321) 500
for the Rocky Mountains and $28,000 for the South. Values for
(NAICS 113)
400 district foresters for the same regions were $62,000, $63,000,
$43,000, and $50,000, respectively. Salary data are not avail-
300 able for more recent years.
200 In the forest products industries annual income per full-time
100
equivalent employee is higher and has increased more for
workers in the paper products industries than those in the
0 wood products industries. For paper products, annual income
North South Pacific Rocky
Coast Mountain increased from $39,954 to $52,572 between 1975 and 2006
Region
and wood products annual income increased from $30,866
1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census to $34,239 (fig. 37-1). Annual income for paper products

continues to be above the average for all manufacturing and be dangerous, and there are reports in the media of people
below the average wood products. Production worker wages for becoming lost or injured every year.
forestry and logging, including timber tract operations, nurser-
ies, and logging, ranged from $33,000 to $34,620 in 2008. Relation to other indicators
Average annual income for persons working in the forest The level of wages and income and level of injuries are a factor
recreation and tourism sector during 2006 was estimated to be in the resilience of forest-based communities (Indicator 6.38)
$22,782, which is only a slight increase from the $21,939 figure and a factor in the importance of forests to people (Indicator
estimated for 2003. This amount is about 37 percent less than 6.44). The level of wages is influenced by the levels of capital
the 2006 national average per capita annual income of $36,276. investment (Indicator 6.34) and by the levels of education and
One likely reason for the lower income is that jobs offered in research (Indicator 6.35). The level of wages in forest products
this sector tend to be lower wage and seasonal jobs. industries may also be influenced by competition with other
countries to provide products for the United States as indicated
Injury and illness rates for forest products industries have by trends in imports as a proportion of U.S. consumption
steadily declined since the early 1990s with rates for wood (Indicator 6.32).
products and furniture industries being somewhat higher than
for all manufacturing, and paper products industries being Figure 37-1. Wage and salary accruals per full-time
somewhat lower (fig. 37-2). In 2006 injury and illness cases per equivalent employee for all manufacturing, lumber, and
100 employees were 5.3 for forestry and logging, 8.5 for wood wood products industries and paper and allied product
products, 7.1 for wood furniture, 4.3 for paper products, and industries, 1930–2006 (thousands of 2005 dollars).
6.0 for all manufacturing.
60
25
50
2005 dollars (thousands)
40
Hourly wages for wood products industries production workers
20
are slightly higher than the national average for the Pacific 60
30
wage in 2005 dollars

25
Coast and slightly lower for the South (fig. 37-3). Wages for 50
2005 dollars (thousands)
20
paper products industries are slightly higher in the South, 15
40
10
Pacific Coast and North than in the Rocky Mountains. 20
30
0
2005 dollars
Average income in forest-based recreation and tourism in 2006
55
60
95
00
05
30
35
40
10
45
50
65
70
85
90
75
80
20
19
19
19
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
was highest for the Pacific Southwest and Pacific , $24,566 and
19
19
19
19
Year
Hourly wage in Hourly

All manufacturing 15
lowest for the Rocky Mountains, $17,620 (both in 2005 dollars) 10 Lumber and wood products Paper and allied products
(fig. 37-4). Although these differences could be a function Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
0
5
of forest-based recreation and tourism demand driving labor
55
60
95
00
05
30
35
40
10
45
50
65
70
85
90
75
80
19
19
19
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
markets, fluctuations in regional economies are likely to be the Figure

25 37-2. Rate of injury Yearand illness cases per 100
All manufacturing
major drivers of these rankings. full-time workers
Lumber andfor
woodlumber
productsand wood
Paper products, paper
and allied products 0
and20allied products, and all manufacturing industries,
100 workersper 100 workers
5
1976–2006.
25
this time? 15
0
Wage and annual income estimates are not available for State 30
in 2005 dollars (thousands)

20
Injury/illness
10
forestry agencies, nonwood products industries, forestry 25
schools in colleges and universities or for local governments
Annual income Annual income
15 20
and NGOs that contribute to forestry. Special surveys would be 5
Injury/illness per
15
required to collect this information. 30
in 2005 dollars (thousands)
10 10
0 25
Injury rate information is not available for most forest 5
5
0
00
0
75
95
0
9
8
20
20
19
20
19
19
19
19
management jobs nor are they available for the nonwood Year
5 Limber and wood products Paper and allied products 0
15
forest products sector or jobs in forest recreation and tourism Wood furniture All manufacturing
10
jobs. Injuries for some forest management jobs are included 0
in wood and paper industry data. Although nonwood forest 5
05
90
00
80
75
85
95
20
19
20
19
19
19
19
Year
products workers operate in the informal economy (not covered Limber and wood products Paper and allied products 0
by traditional surveys), gathering products in the forest can Wood furniture All manufacturing
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Figure 37-3. Wage per hour for production workers in wood products industries (left side) and paper products
industries (right side) by region, 1997, 2002–2006.
1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
25
20 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

25
in 2005 dollars
15
20
dollars
in 2005wage
5
00
05
10
99
20
20
15
Hourly wageHourly
oducts
5
95
00
05
10
20
20
oducts
0
5 North South Pacific Rocky North South Pacific Rocky
Coast Mountain Coast Mountain
Region
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census
0
North South Pacific Rocky North South Pacific Rocky
Coast 2003 Mountain
2006 Coast Mountain
Figure 37-4. Annual average income for persons
30 techniques underlying this work can be found in the supporting
Region
dollars (thousands)
employed
25 in the forest recreation and tourism sector by documentation on the project Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/
region,202003 and 2006. research/sustain/) and in Magis (2004).
Annual income
2003 2006
30
15 Community resilience (CR) is defined as the existence,
(thousands)
25
10 development, and engagement of community resources by
Annual income
community members to thrive in an environment characterized

in 2005
205
05
20
150 by change, uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise. Members

in 2005 dollars
d products North South Rocky Pacific

ng 10 Mountain Coast of resilient communities intentionally develop personal and
5
Region collective capacity that they engage to respond to and influence
05
change, to sustain and renew the community and to develop

20
d products 0
ng
Rocky
Mountain
North South Pacific
Coast
new trajectories for the community’s future.
Region
Sources: USDA Forest Service analysis, multiple data sources The contribution of community resilience to the MP C&I is a
deeper understanding of social sustainability, specifically as it
relates to a community’s ability to thrive in contexts of change.
A community’s resilience will determine its ability to success-
Indicator 6.38. The Resilience of Forest- fully mobilize and respond to societal stress, making it integral
Dependent Communities to social sustainability. Further, human societies are intimately
interconnected with ecological systems. Hence, the resilience
What is the indicator and why is it important? of forest-communities will influence their capacity to act as
forest stewards, thus, affecting the forest’s sustainability.
Resilience of Forest Dependent Communities is a new indicator
of social sustainability. In the development of this indicator, Eight dimensions operationalize CR into actionable, observ-
the Montréal Process Technical Advisory Committee suggested able, and measurable elements; Community Resources, Devel-
that countries provide definitions and select approaches to opment of Community Resources, Engagement of Community
measurement that best reflect their national experiences. The Resources, Active Agents, Collective Action, Strategic Action,
resultant methodology should enable reporting on the health Equity, and Impact. The Community Resilience Self Assessment
of forest-dependent communities and trends over time. The (CRSA) was developed to provide a comprehensive portrayal
definition, operationalization, and data gathering protocol of a community’s resilience via its performance along the eight
presented herein emerged from research commissioned by the dimensions. From it, information is gleaned regarding: the
U.S. Roundtable. Additional information on the concepts and community’s resources; how the resources are developed and

used; the participation and collective involvement of commu- scores. The CRSA uses a scale of 1–6. A score of 1 equates
nity members in community endeavors; and the effect of those with very low resilience; 2—low resilience; 3—low to medium
collective efforts. resilience; 4—medium resilience; 5—low and high resilience;
and 6—high resilience. The following graphics exemplify one
What does the indicator show? way to display the CR data. A radar chart is used in the first
four figures to display CR scores for the pilot communities
The goal of this ongoing research project is to depict a national
(figs. 38-1 and 38-2).
picture of the extent to which communities dependent on
forests for their wellbeing, livelihoods, subsistence, quality of Six communities were sampled as a proof of concept for this
life, or cultural identity are able to respond and adapt to change. report. Because this sample is very small, generalizations can-
not be made. With a broadened sampling base, however, data
The CR definition and dimensions emerged from multidisci-
can be compared across communities and relationships between
plinary research to understand and describe the well-being and
dimensions and forest sustainability can be demonstrated.
resilience of communities. The Community Resilience Self
Figure 38-3 shows comparisons between three of the sample
Assessment (CRSA) and sampling protocol were developed to
communities, that is, Alberton, Superior, and St. Regis.
measure a community’s resilience along the eight CR Dimen-
sions. The CRSA contains 66 questions arranged across the
eight dimensions. Respondents were chosen through a purpo- What has changed since 2003?
sive sampling method involving key informants, and responses Indicator 6.38 is essentially
Alberton Community a newResilience
indicator,Scores
although it is
Community resources 2.94
to the CRSA were gathered via the Internet. related to Indicator 46 in the 2003 report, which measured the
viability and adaptability of forest-dependentDevelop communities. The
The next stage in this project is to establish and administer a Impact community
approach 3.17taken in 2003 relied on nationally available data on
resources 2.5
sampling process to periodically gather resilience data from
county level conditions, and was therefore restricted in terms
forest-based communities across the United States. These data
of spatial specificity and the sorts of variables it could measure.
will provide a national picture of community resilience as it
The CRSA generates community-scale data, which portrays a
relates to forest sustainability, thereby accomplishing the intent
community’s
Equity resilience from the perspective of keyEngagementinformants.
of Indicator 6.38.
Key informants are individuals whose active engagement
3.61 of in the
community
resources
community gives them broad knowledge regarding3.12 social, po-
Initial Results litical, economic, cultural and ecological conditions and trends in
Administration of the CRSA generates data that describes their community. The CRSA and key informant methodology
conditions prevailing in particular communities. Key enable direct
Strategic action measurement of CR, but with some costs in
Active agents terms
3.22
3.25
informants rank the community’s resilience along each CR of breadth of coverage. Given these changes, it is impossible to
Dimension. Their answers are tallied to generate dimension draw direct comparisons to action
Collective the results
3.08 displayed in 2003.
Figure 38-1. Sample radar plot showing Community Figure 38-2. Sample radar plot showing Community
Resilience Self Assessment (CRSA) scores for Alberton, Resilience Self Assessment (CRSA) scores for Superior,
MT (sampled in 2009–2010). MT (sampled in 2009–2010).
Alberton Community Resilience Scores Superior Community Resilience Scores
Community resources 2.94 Community resources 3.49
Develop Develop
Impact community Impact community
3.17 resources 2.5 3.49 resources 2.86
Equity Engagement Equity Engagement

3.61 of community 3.73 of community
resources resources
3.12 3.58
Strategic action Active agents 3.22 Strategic action Active agents 3.94
3.25 3.73
Collective action 3.08 Collective action 3.59

Figure shows CRSA index scores (1 = lowest, 6 = highest) Figure shows CRSA index scores (1 = lowest, 6 = highest)

Figure 38-3. Combined Community Resilience Self Assessment (CRSA) scores for three communities in Mineral
County, MT.
Mineral County
4.1
3.8
CRSA score
3.5
3.2
2.9
2.6
2.3
Community Develop Engagement Active Collective Strategic Equity Impact
resources community of community agents action action
resources resources
Community Resillience Dimensions
Alberton 2.94 2.5 3.12 3.22 3.08 3.25 3.61 3.17
Superior 3.49 2.86 3.58 3.94 3.59 3.73 3.73 3.49
St. Regis 3.29 2.59 3.31 3.36 3.12 3.27 3.39 3.42
Regional differences What does the indicator show?

As the sample size to date is so small, regional differences Our growing understanding of subsistence use of forests indi-
cannot yet be discussed. An enhanced sample size will enable cates that people from diverse ethnic backgrounds make use of
this level of analysis, however. subsistence resources from forests in every region of the United
States. These activities have particular cultural importance
Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at for indigenous peoples. Three cannons of law provide legal
this time? guarantees for subsistence practices of selected populations:
(1) treaty law, (2) the Hawaii State Constitution, and (3) the
The approach presented here addresses the nature of Indicator
Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA).
6.38 for the communities that have been sampled. The next
Subsistence activities tend to be associated with poverty in
phase of this project is to develop a rich-enough sample to
the popular imagination. Many residents who hunt, fish, trap,
reveal the traditions and trends in the Nation’s forest-dependent
and gather to meet their basic needs, however, regard these
communities and specific relationships between CR and forest
practices as a form of wealth, which frequently benefits not
sustainability. Hence, the next phase of the development of
only the individual but also the extended family and a larger
Indicator 6.38 in the United States is to expand considerably
community. Access to forests for subsistence resources appears
the number of communities utilizing a purposeful framework
to be declining with changes in land use and land ownership
aimed at developing comparability across space and time.
that include increases in posting to restrict trespassing and the
establishment of exclusive hunting leases.
Indicator 6.39. Area and percent of forests
used for subsistence purposes
We were able to gather more evidence of subsistence activities
in the State of Hawaii, particularly on Molokai, where subsis-
tence activities are reported to provide more than 50 percent
In many countries, indigenous groups, rural communities, and of food for some residents and an average of 28 percent for all
others use forests for subsistence purposes, although this use islanders. Additional data on Alaska, where subsistence access
of forests may not be broadly recognized. This indicator measures is guaranteed on Federal lands (fig. 39-1), was available, thanks
the extent to which forests are used as a source of basic commodi- to ongoing research by the Subsistence Division of Alaska’s
ties, such as food, fuel, shelter, and medicinal plants. In addition Department of Fish and Game. Table 39-1 provides a summary
to the tangible benefits it provides, for many people, subsistence of annual wild food harvests and contributions to food intake in
use has a deep cultural, and often, spiritual significance. Alaska’s 27 census areas. We also had more time to look into
the contested nature of subsistence. Although subsistence is
guaranteed by ANILCA, the Hawaiian State Constitution, and

Table 39-1. Annual wild food harvests for 27 Alaska provides for the subsistence use of forest resources by all rural
census areas Alaskans regardless of race or income. The Hawaiian Constitu-
Daily Protein Daily Calories tion protects the customary and traditional rights of Native
Lbs./Person
(Percent) (Percent) Hawaiians, including subsistence use of marine and terrestrial
Mean 268 173 24
resources. Some federally recognized tribes retain treaty rights
Median 206 133 19
Minimum 16 10 1 to hunt, fish, trap, and gather on specified off-reservation lands.
Maximum 698 451 64 Subsistence activities by other groups in other locations do not
Source: Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Subsistence Division (http://www. enjoy formal legal status under U.S. or State laws.
subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/)
treaties with Indian tribes, litigation over the exercise of those

rights has been, and continues to be, ongoing. In several places this time?
around the country, Federal and State agencies have entered The indicator addresses area and percent of forests used for
into Memoranda of Understanding and Agreement that assure subsistence, yet relevant data currently are collected by Federal
access by members of local tribes to hunting, fishing, and and State agencies only in Alaska. These agencies quantify
gathering resources for purposes that include subsistence. In subsistence by metrics such as numbers of users, weight of
2007, the Inland Consent Decree between the State of Michigan subsistence resources harvested, and numbers of persons giving
and five tribes affirms treaty-guaranteed access to hunt, fish, or receiving subsistence goods in barter or gift exchange. Pro-
and gather on State and some private lands and inland waters viding a spatial display of forested areas used for subsistence
in an area that covers 13,827,207 acres (fig. 39-2). Finally, is challenging because subsistence does not occur in discreet
Norris’s 2002 history of the National Park Service provides a areas, but is diffused and, if anecdotal evidence is indicative,
detailed picture of how NPS policies toward subsistence have widespread. It is not possible to summarize these sorts of data
evolved during the past 90 years. into simple numerical measures.
The fact that Hawaii and Alaska have specific State provisions
Are there important regional differences? protecting subsistence use indicates the importance of subsistence
Yes, in Alaska, subsistence is formally recognized by the in these States. The absence of such provisions (or data for that
State and Federal Governments as a vital social, economic, matter) in other States, however, does not necessarily indicate
and cultural activity. ANILCA (P.L.96-487, Dec. 2, 1980) that subsistence activities are largely absent or unimportant.
Figure 39-1. Federal lands in Alaska, which are Figure 39-2. The 2007 Inland Consent Decree area
generally open to rural Alaskans for subsistence harvest (map courtesy of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and
(map courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Wildlife Commission).
Federal Lands in Alaska Lake States National Forests and Cippewa Ceded Territories:
Treaties of 1836, 1837, and 1842
Ceded territory*
MOU signatory tribe*
National forest
Legend
Federal lands
State or private lands
* The ceded territory and tribal reservation boundaries are representation and
may not be the legally binding boundaries.

Indicator 6.40. Distribution of revenues products industries, 17 percent by wood furniture industries,
and 5 percent by forestry and logging. The share of revenue
derived from forest management going to workers was somewhat higher for the paper and
wood furniture industries, 82 and 83 percent, respectively
What is the indicator and why is it important? (with correspondingly lower profit shares), than for the wood
Revenues derived from forest management activities, including products and forestry and logging industries, at 76 and 79
the sale of forest products and environmental services, are one percent respectively.
of the principal sources of funds for paying annual operating
We next look at who shares in the revenues from sale of timber
costs and making capital investments in the forest estate. This
from forest land. We have data for 1997 that indicate how this
indicator tracks who shares in the revenues—workers through
revenue is shared among various forest land owners, including
wages and income, communities through taxes, and others at
owners of national forests, other public forest land, industry
different geographic scales. Therefore, information on the collec-
forest owners, and other private forest owners. Based on rough
tion and distribution of these revenues will be useful in under-
estimates for the total stumpage sales value in 1997 of $22 billion
standing economic support for sustainable forest management.
(2005 dollars), 5 percent went to national forests, 6 percent
went to other public lands, 33 percent went to industry land
What does the indicator show? owners, and 56 percent went to other private landowners (fig.
We first look at who shares in the revenues from the operation 40-2). Since 1997, a significant amount of industry forest land
of forest products industries. These industries include forestry has been sold to Timber Management Organizations and Real
and logging, wood products, paper products, and wood Estate Investment trust, so the share of stumpage revenues 100
furniture. Figure 40-1 shows the shares of revenues in these going to industry land owners
After tax profits has probably declined.
$13,103 80
industries that go to workers in the form of wages, to business
Percent share
18%
owners in the form of profits, and governments in the form of A considerable amount of Native-American land is forested. 60
taxes. In 2002, of a total $72.5 billion (2005 dollars) in wages, These forests provide wood and nonwood forest products and
Taxes and fees
profits and taxes, 80 percent went to wages, 18 percent to other values that are vital to Native-American communities.
$1,666
40
profits, and 2 percent to taxes. It is notable that these amounts Therefore it2%also important to note the share of U.S. timber 20
are only part of the uses of the total revenue from product ship- stumpage revenues that goes to Native Americans.
0
ments of about $300 billion (2005 dollars) in 2002. Revenue Approximately 18 million acres of forest land exist on Indian North
is also used to pay for other costs of production, including reservations in the United States, of which 5.7 million acres
Payroll
materials, energy, insurance, and interest on debt. The profits are classified as commercial timber land. In 2001 $57,744
these lands Natio
80%
received in 2002 by owners ($11 billion (2005 dollars) were provided $95 million of revenue (2005 dollars) mostly from
about 3.7 percent of the value of shipments. industrial timber harvest. This 2001 stumpage revenue is 0.4 100
Of the $72.5 billion in wages, profits, and taxes, 43 percent percent of the estimated total U.S. 1997 stumpage revenue
80
of $22 billion (2005 dollars). The 18 million acres of Native-
Percent share
was provided by paper products industries, 35 percent by wood
60
Figure 40-1. Payments going to forest products Figure 40-2. Share of stumpage revenue from U.S. 40
business owners (profits), to forest products firm timber harvest by owner, 1997.
employees (payroll), and to governments (taxes and National forest 20
fees), 2002 (in millions of 2005 dollars and percent). 100 5%
Other public
0
After tax profits 6% Nationa
$13,103 80
Other private
Percent share
18% 56% No
60
Industry
Taxes and fees 33%
40
$1,666
2%
20
0
Mountain Coast
Payroll Region
$57,744 National forest Other public Industry Other private
80% Sources: USDA Forest Service analysis, multiple data sources
100
Sources: USDA Forest Service analysis, multiple data sources
80
rcent share
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 60 II–97

American forest land is about 2 percent of total U.S. forest land Coast (68 percent), followed by the North (18 percent), Rocky
(749 million acres). The 5.7 million acres of Native-American Mountains (10 percent), and South (4 percent). For industry
timber land is about 1 percent of total U.S. timber land (504 owners the largest share of revenue came from the Pacific Coast
million acres). (54 percent) followed by the South (36 percent), North (7 per-
cent), and the Rocky Mountains (3 percent). For other private
For Native-American forest land in 2001, the Pacific Northwest
landowners, the largest share for revenue came from the South
Region accounted for more than 70 percent of the harvested
(66 percent), followed by the North (18 percent), Pacific Coast
timber volume and more than 85 percent of revenue, followed
(14 percent), and Rocky Mountains (2 percent) (fig. 40-4).
by the Lake States at 13.5 percent of the harvested timber
volume and more than 7 percent of revenue.
this time?
Data are not available to determine a time trend in share of
Data are not available to determine a time trend in share of
revenues received by various groups.
revenue received by various groups from forest industry
activities or from timber sales. Information of overall revenues from environmental services is
shown under Indicator 27. Data, however, are not available on
Are there important regional differences? the shares of such revenues going to workers, businesses, and
governments. Nor are data available on the shares of revenues
The estimated share of timber stumpage revenues going to
from such services going to various types of forest land owners.
various landowners varies widely among regions (fig. 40-3). In
1997, the share going to public owners (national forest and other
public) was highest in the Rocky Mountain Region (37 percent) Relation to other indicators
followed by the Pacific Coast (23 percent), North (14 percent), The trends in who obtains benefits from forests would aid our
and South (1 percent). The share going to other private owners understanding of the importance of forests (Indicator 6.44),
(nonindustry) was highest in the South (75 percent) followed and100
would aid our understanding of the influence of changing
by the North (70 percent),
After Rocky
tax profitsMountains (33 percent), and benefits on resilience of forest-dependent communities (Indica-
Pacific Coast (24 percent).$13,103 80
tor 6.38)—to whom and where are benefits flowing. The trends
Percent share
18%
in who
60 obtains benefits from forest would also suggest how
Another way to look at the geographical distribution of revenue
the stakeholders in forests are changing. As benefits increase
shares is byTaxes
looking at where various types of owners receive
and fees 40
$1,666 to certain stakeholder groups, their voices may become more
most of their stumpage revenue.
2% influential
20 in determining forest investment (Indicator 6.37),
For national forest or other public land owners in 1997, the research and education (Indicator 6.35), and institutions
0
largest share of stumpage revenue came from the Pacific (Criterion 7).
Mountain Coast
Payroll Region
Figure 40-3. Share of stumpage revenue from U.S. timber
$57,744 Figure 40-4. Share
National forest of stumpage
Other publicrevenue from U.S.
Industry timber
Other private
harvest for each type of forest owner by region, 1997.
80% harvest for each region by type of forest owner, 1997.
100 100
80 80
Percent share
Percent share
60
60
40
40
20
National forest 20
0 5%
North South Rocky Other public Total
Pacific 0
Mountain Coast 6% National forest Other public Industry Other private
Payroll Other private Region Region
$57,744 National forest
56% Other public Industry Other private North South Rocky Mountain Pacific Coast
80% Sources: USDA Forest Service analysis, multiple data sources Industry Sources: USDA Forest Service analysis, multiple data sources
33%
100
80
Percent share
60
40
20
Indicator 6.41. Area and percent of forests United States, it is not possible, for the most part, to ascertain
the degree to which forests under different ownerships are
available and managed for public recreation managed specifically for recreation and tourism.
and tourism
Government, corporation, and organization-owned forest
What is the indicator and why is it important? lands
This indicator is intended to measure the extent to which Open Federal forest lands include forested national forests,
forests are managed to provide opportunities for recreation and national parks, Bureau of Land Management lands, wildlife ref-
tourism as a specific objective in forest management plans of uges, and any other federally managed public land. State forest
public agencies and private landowners. When the economic lands include forested State forests, State parks, and other State
well-being of a country increases, transportation infrastructure management areas. Local forests include municipal watersheds,
is improved, and disposable income grows, public use of local parks, local forest preserves, greenways, and other local
forests for recreation grows. These activities are increasingly government forests. Private forest lands include those that are
important as a source of forest-based employment and income. owned by forest-industry, by other types of corporations, by
Engaging in outdoor recreation and tourism in forests tends to individuals and families, and by other noncorporate entities.
build support among participants for protecting and managing Like public lands, it is assumed for this indicator report that
those forests, indirectly building support for sustainable forests. forest industry, other corporate, and other noncorporate lands
are open to someone for some forms of recreational uses,
What does the indicator show? although access to them is most likely restricted. For corpora-
tion lands, data are not available for estimating the acreages
Forest area in the United States is estimated at just more than
generally open to anyone versus acreages restricted for use by
751 million acres, and has remained relatively constant for the
employees, executives, lessees, or exclusively to others. More
past 100 years. Almost 44 percent of U.S. forest land area is
than one-half of the forest industry forests are in the South.
publicly owned (fig. 41-1); one-third is federally owned. More
Large portions of other corporation lands not owned by forest
than 18 percent of forest land is owned by private corporations,
industry are located in the Pacific Coast and South regions.
and almost 38 percent is privately owned by noncorporate
Other noncorporate private forest lands (not including family
entities. Of this noncorporate private forest land, more than 92
and individual ownerships) lie mostly in the Northern and
percent is family or individually owned. With negligible excep-
Rocky Mountain Regions.
tions, even including Federal experimental forests, government
forest lands at all levels are open to someone for some form
of outdoor recreation. Given, however, that an inventory of Family and individual forest lands
forest tracts by management objectives is not available for the Almost one-half of the family and individually owned private
forest land is in the South Region, nearly 36 percent is in the
North Region, and much smaller percentages are in the Rocky
Figure 41-1. Percent of forest land in the United States
by ownership category, 2007 (percentages sum to Mountain and Pacific Coast Regions. Figure 41-2 shows the
100) (Almost all forest lands are open for some form percentages of family and individually owned forest land nation-
of recreation, although who may have access may be ally by category of recreational access. More than 42 percent of
restricted). this forest land is posted to limit access. Posting does not mean
not used for recreation, it means access is restricted. The percent-
Beauty/scenery
Local, 1.5%
Corporate forest industry, 6.8% State, 9.2% age of land posted is highest
Part of home or vacation home in the Pacific Coast Region and
lowest in the North Region. The National Woodland Ownership
Other corporate, 11.5% Privacy
Federal, 33.1% Survey estimated that about 54 percent of family forest land was
Protect nature/biologic diversity
open only to family or friends and no others. Just 14.6 percent
of the family forest
Pass land on toarea was open to the public with permission
children/heirs
Reason for owning land
of the owner. Almost Land investment of the family forest area was
8 percent
leased in the past 5 years for recreational uses. Percentages open
Recreation-not hunting or fishing
Family individual, to the public were highest in the North and Rocky Mountain
35.1% Regions. Leasing Partwas greatest
of farm or ranchin the Rocky Mountain Region.
Hunting or fishing
Figure 41-3 shows area of family forest land by reasons for
Other noncorporate, 2.8%
Forest land ownership (percent)
owning in 2006. Beauty
Produce appreciation is at the top with 65 percent
firewood/biofuel
Produce sawlogs/
Source: USDA Forest Service of owners,pubpwood/timber
followed by passing
products
the land to heirs, gaining privacy,
Cultivate/collect
nontimber forest products
No answer
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percent
Reaso
Other noncorporate, 2.8%
Forest land ownership (percent)
protection of nature, and having it as part of a home or cabin Figure 41-2. Percentage of family or individually owned
site. Smaller percentages of owners considered owning forest forest land area by category of recreational access, 2006.
land important because of hunting, fishing, or other recreation
Used for or not posted to
opportunities. restrict recreation 88.9
What has changed since 2003? Used by owner

and/or others 58.4
Total area of public forest land at all levels of government has
increased slightly. Thus, the trend for public land available
Type of access
Leased recreation 7.7
for recreation is up slightly. Percentages of nonindustrial land
available to the public at large across U.S. regions, however,
Public recreation 14.6
are modest and have been trending downward during the past
several decades. From 1985 to 1986, nearly 25 percent of
owners permitted some public access. This percentage dropped Private recreation 53.7
by 1995 to nearly 14.5 percent (Cordell 1999). In 2000 to 2001,

it was estimated that only 10.9 percent of owners permitted Posted 42.5
access to the general public. The lowest percentage was in the
West, at 8 percent, and highest was in the North, at 13 percent. 0 20 40 60 80 100
Based on the National Woodland Ownership Survey, it was Percent
Source: Butler 2008
estimated that 14.6 percent of family forest owners allow public
access. This estimate closely resembles those reported earlier,
although the source is different and not directly comparable. Figure 41-3. Percent of family forest owners in the
United States by reasons for owning, 2006 (excluding
interior Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, western Oklahoma, and
Are there important regional differences? western Texas.
Almost all of the 751 million acres of forest land in the United Beauty/scenery
States is open to someone for some
Corporate forest industry, 6.8%
form(s)
Local, 1.5% of recreation. Almost
State, 9.2% Part of home or vacation home
29 percent of this forest land is in the South, and just more
than 28 corporate,
Other percent is in the Pacific Coast Region, which includes
11.5% Privacy
Federal, 33.1%
Alaska. Almost 23 percent is in the North, followed by the Protect nature/biologic diversity
Rocky Mountain Region with 20 percent. Most of the public Pass land on to children/heirs
forest land (especially Federal forests) is in the western two
Reason for owning land
Land investment
regions. Public lands in the West are essentially open to anyone
for recreation, except for certain military or laboratory sites. Recreation-not hunting or fishing
Family individual,
35.1% Part of farm or ranch
Most of the private land is in the Eastern States (North and
South regions). Recreation use is more restricted on private Hunting or fishing
lands than on public lands. The South hasnoncorporate,

Other by far the 2.8%
greatest Produce firewood/biofuel
area of family or Forest land ownership (percent)
individually owned forest land in the United Produce sawlogs/
pubpwood/timber products
States, followed in order by the North, the Rocky Mountain and
Cultivate/collect
Pacific Coast regions. The North, however, has the greatest area nontimber forest products
of family forest land open to the general public, 17.2 million No answer
acres, 18.3 percent of the region’s total. Next is the South with 0
30 40 50 60 7010 20
12.2 million acres, 9.9 percent of the region’s total family Percent
Used for or not posted to Source: Butler 2008, includes owners who rated the objective as very important
forest land. Therecreation
restrict South has the greatest area of family forest88.9 or important on a seven-point Likert scale, with seven defined as not important
leased for recreation, at 12.4 million acres, or 9.7 percent. The
next largestUsed
areabyofowner
family forest leased for recreation
58.4
is the
and/or others
Rocky Mountain Region at 4.1 million acres, 16.9 percent of
family forest in that region.
Type of access
Leased recreation 7.7
Public recreation 14.6
Private recreation 53.7

Posted 42.5
Indicator 6.42. Number, type, and geographic centers (table 42-1). The numbers of annual forest recreation
activity days for these 10 activities (roughly equivalent to
distribution of visits attributed to recreation visits) range from a high of almost 7.5 billion (walking for
and tourism and related to facilities available pleasure) to just more than 680 million (visit nature centers,
and so on). Snowmobiling, mountain climbing, cross country
What is the indicator and why is it important? skiing, rock climbing, and snowshoeing account for a much
Indicator 6.42 provides a measure of recreation and tourism smaller number of recreation activity days, but still they add
use of forests. These activities are increasingly important as a up to a sizeable number of visits (ranging between about 20
source of forest-based employment and income. Engaging in to more than 62 million). Obviously, Americans are strongly
outdoor recreation and tourism in forests tends to build support interested in viewing and photographing forest natural life.
among participants for protecting and managing those forests, Over all activities listed in table 42-1, the percentage of forest-
indirectly building support for sustainable forests. This indica- based activity days that occurs on public lands ranges from under
tor focuses on forest recreation visits, facilities, and capacities. 50 percent (for example, small-game hunting and gathering
mushrooms and berries) to more than 75 percent (for example,
What does the indicator show? visiting wilderness, day hiking, visiting nature centers, and
backpacking). Over all activities, the percentage of forest-based
Number of recreation visits to forests for selected recreation activity days that occur in urban forests ranges between
recreation activities roughly 15 to 45 percent. Activities with the lowest percentages
The top 10 forest recreation activities, in terms of numbers of in urban forests are hunting, camping, and backpacking. Activities
visits, are walking for pleasure; viewing and photographing with the highest percentages in urban forests include walking,
natural scenery; viewing and photographing flowers, trees and picnicking, family gatherings, and visiting nature centers.
other forest vegetation; viewing and photographing birds; view- Public lands and urban forests clearly play significant roles in
ing and photographing wildlife; day hiking; visiting wild areas; providing opportunities for outdoor recreation.
off-highway driving; family gatherings; and visiting nature
Table 42-1. Millions of annual forest recreation activity days by activity and estimated percentages on public forest
lands and in urban forests, 2007–2008.
Number of Activity Days Public Forest Urban Forests
Forest Recreation Activity
(millions) (percent) (percent)
Walking for pleasure 7,493.3 53.8 44.5
Viewing and photographing natural scenery 6,170.6 61.9 31.8
Viewing and photographing wildflowers, trees, and so on 4,858.9 55.4 36.3
Viewing and photographing birds 3,738.3 51.3 37.6
Viewing and photographing other wildlife 3,086.8 57.7 32.2
Day hiking 1,234.8 76.2 34.0
Visiting a wilderness or primitive area 947.6 76.4 24.6
Off-highway driving 837.5 50.4 23.2
Family gathering 805.3 55.9 43.5
Visiting nature centers, and so on 683.8 77.6 45.2
Gather mushrooms, berries, and so on 623.4 47.9 32.3
Mountain biking 463.3 60.2 32.1
Picnicking 455.9 68.4 44.4
Developed camping 356.0 72.8 21.3
Big game hunting 279.8 45.7 16.5
Primitive camping 211.4 75.8 21.4
Backpacking 198.8 78.5 22.1
Visiting historic sites 182.8 60.0 39.1
Horseback riding on trails 177.5 50.8 34.4
Small game hunting 161.5 46.8 17.4
Visiting prehistoric/archeological sites 138.9 70.0 41.6
Snowmobiling 62.1 55.1 27.4
Mountain climbing 57.1 78.6 20.5
Cross country skiing 41.9 60.5 33.7
Rock climbing 34.1 68.8 26.9
Snowshoeing 19.9 60.2 27.6
Source: National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, 2005–2008 (historical data specific to forest-based recreation were not available, thus, the trend in figure
42.3 below is for all outdoor recreation)

Number and capacity of recreation facilities in forests for Mountains, the Ozarks, the Great Lakes area, the southern
selected types of recreation activities Rocky Mountains, California, and the Pacific Northwest.
Across the United States, more than 6,000 Federal campgrounds Figure 42-2 shows the distribution of private sector capaci-
exist; most are in the West, especially in the Rocky Mountains/ ties summed across a variety of forest-based recreation and
Great Plains and Pacific Coast, where Federal lands are abundant. tourism businesses. The greatest concentrations of forest-based
Private sector businesses in the United States analyzed for this recreation and tourism businesses are in the New England
indicator include recreational vehicle parks and campgrounds, States, the Great Lakes area, the Pacific Northwest, California,
snow skiing areas, marinas, historic sites, nature parks and and the southern Rocky Mountain Region. Private facilities,
similar sites, and sightseeing and related tourism transportation sites, and services are also scattered throughout the Southeast.
services. Many of these businesses are located near Federal and State
public lands. Significant amounts of the private forest recre-
In 2005, an estimated 1,586 privately operated forest-based RV ation capacity mapped here lies within a 2-hour drive of U.S.
parks and campgrounds existed. More than 180 forest-based, population centers of 1,000,000 or more (shown as red dots and
privately run, snow skiing facilities existed in 2005, mainly scaled by size).
downhill ski slopes. Most of these skiing facilities were in
the North Region. Privately operated historic sites in forested
areas were estimated at about 330, almost all of which, 89
percent, are in the East. Estimated number of private, forest- Overall, between 2000 and 2007, the trend has been increased
based nature parks and similar sites in the United States was participation in outdoor recreation overall. As reported in
about 200 nationally, of which about 77 percent are in the Forest History Today (Cordell, 2008), the total number of
East, mostly in the Northeast portion of this region. Nearly people who participated in one or more outdoor activities grew
160 private forest-based scenic and sightseeing transportation by 4.4 percent between 2000 and 2007 (fig. 42-3). At the same
businesses existed, mostly in the East. time, the number of recreation activity days, summed across all
activities, increased by approximately 25 percent. (Trend data
Figure 42-1 shows the county-level distribution of Federal for forest recreation only were not available.) The number and
forest campground capacity relative to county population and capacity of public and private forest-based recreation sites have
the location of major cities. The greatest amount of Federal remained about constant or increased slightly.
forest campground capacity is in the southern Appalachian
Figure 42-1. Location of forest-based Federal Figure 42-2. Location of cities and forest-based
campground capacity per 100,000 people. recreation businesses (5 types) per 100,000 people.
Figure 42-1. Location of forest-based Federal
campground capacity per 100,000 people. Source:
The primary source is the U.S. Census Bureau, County
Business Patterns, 2001 and 2005
Counties with
forest-weighted
Counties with number of recreation
forest-weighted total businesses—sum of
campground capacity 6 business types—
per 100k population per 100k population Cities over 1 million
Cities over 1 million
0.00 0.00
1–3 million 1–3 million
0.01–5,000.00 0.01–4.00
3–9 million 3–9 million
5,000.01–15,000.00 4.01–12.00
9–19 million 12.01–40.00 9–19 million
15,000.01–40,000.00
State boundary 40.01–164.86 State boundary
40,000.01–152,331.71
Sources: The primary source is the U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Sources: USDA Forest Service and U.S. Census Bureau
Patterns, 2001 and 2005

Figure 42-3. Growth in number of people and number What does the indicator show?
of recreation activity days in 60 outdoor recreation
Americans favor protecting wild forest areas. Primary reasons
activities in the United States, 2000–2007 (reproduced
from Cordell 2008). for wanting protection are for air quality, water quality, and
wildlife habitat, use by future generations, protection of unique
250 100
plants and animals, and for protection of rare and endangered
species. People living in different regions of the country differ
Participants (millions)
very little in what they value about protected wilderness and
Days (billions)
80
other public lands (Cordell, 2008—http://warnell.forestry.uga.
200 edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISWild/IrisWild1rpt.pdf).
60
Protected public forests
Government-owned forest land in the United States by region is
150 40 listed in table 43-1. This indicator assumes that all government
2000 2007
Year land is protected to some degree. An estimated 328 million
Number who participate (millions) Number of activity days (billions)
acres of Federal, State, or local government forest land exist
Source: Cordell 2008
in the United States, about 44 percent of U.S. total forest area
(USDA Forest Service, 2007).
Indicator 6.43. Area and percent of forests The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) employs
managed primarily to protect the range of a classification system to categorize protected natural areas.
Using this system of categories, protected public forests in
cultural, social, and spiritual needs and values the United States are described. WCPA Category 1a (science
natural areas) is represented by experimental forests across
What is the indicator and why is it important? the country. A total of more than 940,000 acres of forest are
This indicator measures the area of forest land managed designated as experimental forests in the United States. More
primarily to protect cultural, social, and spiritual values. These than 58 percent of the total experimental forest area is in the
values are important dimensions of social well-being for people Pacific Coast region; about one-fourth is in the Rocky Moun-
concerned about forests—whether they live in or near forests tain Region. Experimental forests represent about 0.1 percent
or at great distances from them. Where people with unique of the United States’ total forest area. Table 43-1 also shows
needs for cultural, social, or spiritual values are only able to acres of public forest land in WPCA Categories Ib through
meet their needs in unique places; this places a premium on the VI. Just more than 20 percent of public forest is protected
protection and management of those locations. as wilderness (National Wilderness Preservation System,
Table 43-1. Acres (in 1,000s) and percent of public forest by region and by category using the World Commission on
Protected Area (WCPA) classification system. (Percentages sum down to 100, except in the last column, where they
represent all 751 million acres of U.S. forest land, both protected and not protected.)
Rocky Pacific U.S.
WCPA Category North South All U.S. Forest
Mountains Coast Total
(percent)
Acres (%) Acres (%) Acres (%) Acres (%) Acres (%)
Ia: Strict nature reserves 86.5 0.2 71.2 0.2 233.8 0.2 548.7 0.4 940.2 0.3 0.1
Ib: Wilderness 1,559.1 3.5 2,384.9 8.3 21,338.7 18.9 40,853.1 28.6 66,135.9 20.2 8.8
II: National parks 951.9 2.2 2,941.5 10.3 7,836.1 6.9 10,124.5 7.1 21,854 6.7 2.9
III: Natural monuments 3.7 0 28.7 0.1 865.2 0.8 423.0 0.3 1,320.7 0.4 0.2
IV: Habitat/species management 1,563.8 3.6 3,440.9 12 7,226.7 6.4 31,083.0 21.8 43,314.4 13.2 5.8
V: Protected landscape/seascapes 179.9 0.4 332.9 1.2 0 0 33.8 0 546.6 0.2 0.1
VI: Managed protected areas 39,634 90.1 19,479 67.9 75,255 66.7 59,720 41.8 194,087 59.1 25.8
All public forest 43,979 28,679 112,755 142,786 328,199 43.7
Sources: Include Government agencies, http://wilderness.net, USDA Forest Service, 2009 (appendix table 2)

Category Ib), just under 7 percent, is in national parks (Category 70 percent. By far, the State of Maine was the most successful
II), and 0.4 percent of public forest area is designated as natural single State in protecting forest land through the FLP. Maine’s
monuments. Of government-owned U.S. forest, 13 percent is in program added well more than 600,000 acres through ease-
WPCA Category IV, mainly wildlife refuges; and 0.2 percent ments and purchases. New Hampshire and Montana were the
is within the boundaries of protected national lakeshores and next largest States for protecting forest land.
seashores. The largest category of government protected forest
(Category VI) includes managed lands such as national forests, What has changed since 2003?
BLM lands, and other State and local government lands. This
A significant total area of forest land has been added to the U.S.
category makes up almost 60 percent of total U.S. protected public
experimental forest system (national increase of 65 percent
forest lands. The region with the greatest acreage of government-
since 2003). Much of this increase has been in the Pacific Coast
owned forests is the Pacific Coast Region, which run from
Region, mainly by adding a Hawaiian tropical forest (almost
California to Alaska, and include Hawaii. The next highest
313,000 acres of State land) and more than 7,000 acres of the
government-owned acreage is in the Rocky Mountain Region.
Tahoe National Forest in California. Slight losses of public
land overall in the North and South are primarily reflecting dif-
Protected private forests ferences in land area estimation methods between the different
Conservation of private land through land trusts has been time periods. For private forest land, a dramatic increase has
increasing during the past few years. Figure 43-1 shows the occurred since 1985 in the total private forest acres protected
increase in State and local trusts. The National Land Trust through trusts and easements.
Census Report indicated that total acreage conserved through
private means in 2005 was 37 million acres, representing a Figure 43-1. Private land protected by local and State
54-percent increase, since 2000. This acreage includes land land trusts in the United States, 2000–2005.
protected by local and State land trusts, and land protected by 2000 2005
4.0
large national land conservation groups. Examples of large
national groups include The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlim- 3.5
ited, The Conservation Fund, and The Trust for Public Land.
3.0
A land trust is a nonprofit organization that actively works

Acres (millions)
2.5
to conserve land through conservation easements, direct fee
simple acquisitions or by stewardship of easements. The 2.0
Land Trust Alliance of the United States has been organized 1.5
to unite organizations in local communities for natural area
1.0
conservation (http://www.landtrustalliance.org). Internation-
ally, organizations such as the World Commission on Protected 0.5
Areas works within the framework of the United Nations to
0
track and stimulate countries around the globe to designate
t
st
st
ic
ic
es
es
es
nt
cif
a
ea
forests and other lands as protected areas.

hw
he
la
Pa
rth
rth
id
At
ut
ut
M
No
-
So
No
So
id
M
Region
The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is a Federal program
Source: National Land Trust Census Report for 2005
managed by the Forest Service in partnership with States. This
partnership is aimed at protection of environmentally sensitive
private forest lands. Mostly, FLP easements restrict develop- Table 43-2. Total private forest acres protected by
ment and require sustainable forestry practices. FLP can also conservation easements or fee simple purchases
through the Forest Legacy Program as of February 2008
directly support land acquisition. As of 2008 in the United
by Resource Planning Act (RPA) Region.
States, almost 1.6 million acres of privately owned forest land
RPA Region Protected Acres Percent
have been protected (table 43-2). About 85 percent of this
North 1,116,810 70.9
national total (roughly 1.3 million acres) has been protected South 114,099 7.2
through State-level conservation easements (FLP supported Rocky Mountain 281,209 17.8
specifically). Another 0.2 million acres (about 15 percent) Pacific Coast 64,176 4.1
U.S. Total 1,576,294 100.0
was protected through fee simple acquisition. Much of this
Source: USDA Forest Service, Forest Legacy Program (http://www.fs.fed.us/
protected private forest land is in the North Region, more than spf/coop/programs/loa/flp_projects.shtml)

Indicator 6.44. The importance of forests to Although many similarities exist across the diverse focus
group participants, the data suggest some differences based on
people race and ethnicity (feelings of exclusion and fear associated
with forests among African-Americans), rural versus urban
What is the indicator and why is it important? geography (rural respondents were more concerned with forest
Forests are important to people for a wide variety of reasons. policy and management issues and forest degradation and urban
Research studies have enumerated the breadth of values that respondents were more concerned with damage to their home),
people associate with forests. These values are provided, to and age (younger respondents actively interacted with forests
greater and lesser degrees, by different types of forests, groves and to older respondents aesthetics and the trees they could see
of trees, and even by individual trees. The lists suggest a mix of out their windows were more important). These differences
values that extend from consumptive to nonconsumptive uses
and include items that relate to economic, ecological, and social Table 44-1. Frequency of mention by categories of
benefits. importance of trees and forests to individuals and their
communities.
This indicator provides information on the range of values
Category Descriptors Frequency
communities and individuals hold for forests. These values Environmental/Biological 406
shape the way people view forests, including their behaviors Animals Wildlife/animals 75
and attitudes toward all aspects of forest management. This in- Air Breathing, cycle 69
Shade Shade in summer 60
dicator can be used to help understand regional or demographic Water Water, clean, cycle 51
differences in the importance of trees and forests to people and Processes Succession, C, N, fire 39
to monitor changes in perception of the importance of trees and Ecological relationships Links, phenology 30
Shelter 28
forests over time.
Climate change Global climate change 11
Plants trees and other plants 9
What does the indicator show? Cultural Heritage 320
Memories Memories, childhood 78
Over the course of 2008, 26 focus groups with 202 individuals Community Unite, pride, patriotism 82
were conducted with a diversity of populations across the Family relations Associate with family 62
Traditional knowledge Rural, TEK, medicine 43
United States to determine similarities and differences with
Community service Service trip, planting 31
respect to the importance of forests. Diversity was represented Literature and folklore Fairytales, archetype 20
by age, gender, geographic location, race, and ethnicity. The Products 287
sample consisted of: six college student focus groups, five Wood products Fuel, timber, material 176
Nonwood Products Medicine, food, fish, and so on 87
groups of urban African Americans, two groups each of urban
Recreation 271
high school students, Native Americans, and rural adults;
Nonconsumptive activities Camping, hiking, play 189
and one group each of rural high school students, urban Arab Consumptive activities Hunting, fishing, etc. 58
Americans, urban senior citizens, Asian Americans, Hispanic Adventure Exploring, challenge, risk 24
Americans, and Caucasians. Sense of Place 200
Identity Community, history 74
Participants offered a very wide range of reasons why forests Attachment Rootedness, part of life 67
Individual trees Favorite tree, neighbor 38
were important to them personally and to their communities
Dependence Nearby nature, daily use 20
(table 44-1). The depth and breadth of the discussions support Health and Well-being 199
and expand on earlier research indicating trees and forests are Psychological benefits Quiet, comfort, refuge 112
important to Americans in diverse ways and they are able to Well-being activities Sensory, reading, etc. 64
clearly articulate this importance. Aesthetics Beauty, splendor 160

Spiritual Happiness, growth, intrinsic, 114
Focus group participants also discussed ways their interactions stewardship
with trees and forests have changed over their lifetime, (table Diversity 80
Habitat 35
44-2), negative feelings they have about forests (table 44-3)
Biodiversity 22
and concerns they have about forests (table 44-4). Forest type 18
Economics Revenue, livelihood 72
The results of the focus groups clearly indicate that forests
Education 67
are important to Americans in many ways and that a broad
Privacy Separation, borders 33
cross-section of Americans are able to articulate these factors.
TEK = Traditional Ecological Knowledge.
The results also show that Americans have multiple concerns Note: Frequencies within categories do not sum to the total because some
about the future of forests. responses were coded to the first-level category only.

reinforce the need to reflect the demographic diversity of the based on geographic location across the country, ethnicity, oc-
United States when considering the acceptability of forest cupation, age, urban or rural residence, gender, or many other
management activities focused on sustainability. socio-demographic or cultural variables. In addition, no known
studies have documented the intensity, structure, or correlation
Why can’t the entire indicator be reported at of values for forests at this scale. Finally, no known research
this time? exists that has monitored how these values change over time.
Future research is needed to provide this information and
Although this research has provided a number of categories and
develop a protocol to elicit information that can be replicated
descriptions of values related to the environment and forests,
over time to monitor trends in these values across population
no studies were found presenting a statistically robust national
segments.
sample that would allow for analysis of differences in values
Table 44-2. Changes in people’s interactions with trees Table 44-4. Concerns people have about trees and
and forests over their lifetime. forests.
Changes over lifetime Frequency Changes over lifetime Frequency
Interactions/perspectives: more/less interaction, care more, 125 Degradation: pollution, GMOs, plantations, fire, clearcutting, 143
understand more fragmentation, land conversion
Reduced natural resources: fewer fish/wildlife, water trees 42 Sustainability: use of resources, environmental effect, human 73
overpopulation
Policy/Politics: more conservation, less access, more 23
management, loss of rights Management and policy: mismanagement, loss of grazing rights, 58
activism, local knowledge
Competition: competing resources, development 17
Forest condition: changes, disturbance regimes, Invasive species, 57
Economic changes: increased costs, fewer rural jobs 6 global warming
Pollution: trash, traffic, noise 4 Lost connections: detachment, shallow understanding, less 43
Increased natural resources: more fish/wildlife, water, trees 3 experience with large forests
Competition: competing resources, development 24
Economics: jobs, livelihoods, revenue 8
Urban ecosystems: development, lack of trees in urban areas, 6
Table 44-3. Negative feelings people have about trees urbanization
and forests. GMO = genetically modified organisms.
Changes over lifetime Frequency
Tree/home interactions: fall on house, disturb plumbing, 59
maintenance costs, leaf litter
Safety and fear: being lost, images of lynching 29
Animals: bugs, spiders, disease, negative wildlife interactions 32
Plants: poison ivy, allergies, invasive species, thorns 22
Management: privatization, restricted use, lack of management, 20
deforestation
Restricted use/exclusion: feeling “out of place,” discriminatory, 16
exclusionary

Criterion 7
Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for

Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management
What is this criterion and why is it important? The data—The data for Criterion 7 comes from a variety of
sources and are addressed on an indicator-by-indicator basis in
Criterion 7 of the Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators (MP
the indicator briefs.
C&I) addresses the social framework within which we manage
forests for sustainability. Because of the challenges inherent in The indicators—The 2010 Montréal Process indicators
addressing this criterion, we have developed a different overall for Criterion 7 are unchanged relative to 2003. Addressing
approach than that used for the other indicators. This approach the legal, institutional, and economic dimensions of forest
is described in greater detail in the section immediately follow- sustainability in general, and these indicators in particular, has
ing the Criterion 7 indicator list presented below. proven to be a considerable challenge for all of the countries
involved. To address this challenge, the Montréal Process
What has changed since 2003? Working Group completely revamped the Criterion 7 indicators
for the next round of the reporting process, reducing the total
Our approach—The approach taken in 2003 treated each
number of indicators to 10 and greatly simplifying the language
indicator separately, providing available data in the context
of each. As a result, this will be the last U.S. report to use the
of separate narratives. For the 2010 report we have use a
Criterion 7 indicators as they currently stand. The new set of
more integrated approach, analyzing each indicator within the
indicators can be found in the latest addition of the MP C&I
context of a common framework. This approach is described
handbook (Montréal Process Working Group 2009).
in detail in the section immediately following the Criterion 7
indicator table below.
Criterion 7. Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management
(1 of 2).
2003 Revision 2010
2003 (and 2010) Indicator
Reference Action Reference
Extent to which the legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supports the conservation and sustainable management of
forests, including the extent to which it:
48 —Clarifies property rights, provides for appropriate land tenure arrangements, recognizes customary and No change 7.45
traditional rights of indigenous people, and provides a means of resolving property disputes by due process
49 —Provides for periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review that recognizes the range of No change 7.46
forest values, including coordination with relevant sectors
50 —Provides opportunities for public participation in public policy and decisionmaking related to forests and No change 7.47
public access to information
51 —Encourages best practice codes for forest management No change 7.48
52 —Provides for the management of forests to conserve special environmental, cultural, social, and scientific values No change 7.49
Extent to which the institutional framework supports the conservation and sustainable management of forests
53 —Including the capacity to provide for public involvement activities and public education, awareness, and No change 7.50
extension programs, and make available forest-related information
54 —Including the capacity to undertake and implement periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy No change 7.51
review, including cross-sectoral planning coordination
55 —Including the capacity to develop and maintain human resource skills across relevant disciplines No change 7.52

Criterion 7. Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management
(2 of 2).
2003 Revision 2010
2003 (and 2010) Indicator
Reference Action Reference
56 —Including the capacity to develop and maintain efficient physical infrastructure to facilitate the supply of forest No change 7.53
products and services and to support forest management
57 —Including the capacity to enforce laws, regulations, and guidelines No change 7.54
Extent to which the economic framework (economic policies and measures) supports the conservation and sustainable
management of forests
58 —Through investment and taxation policies and a regulatory environment that recognizes the long-term nature No change 7.55
of investments and permits the flow of capital in and out of the forest sector in response to market signals,
nonmarket economic valuations, and public policy decisions to meet long-term demands for forest products
and services
59 —Through investment and taxation policies and a regulatory environment that recognizes the long-term nature of No change 7.56
investments and permits nondiscriminatory trade policies for forest products
Capacity to measure and monitor changes in the conservation and sustainable management of forests
60 —Including availability and extent of up-to-date data, statistics, and other information important to measuring No change 7.57
or describing indicators
61 —Including scope, frequency, and statistical reliability of forest inventories, assessments, monitoring and other No change 7.58
relevant information
62 —Including compatibility with other countries in measuring, monitoring, and reporting on indicators member No change 7.59
countries
Capacity to conduct and apply research and development aimed at improving forest management and delivery of forest goods
and services
63 —Including development of scientific understanding of forest ecosystem characteristics and functions No change 7.60
64 —And development of methodologies to measure and integrate environmental and social costs and benefits No change 7.61
into markets and public policies, and to reflect forest-related resource depletion or replenishment in national
accounting systems
65 —And new technologies and the capacity to assess the socioeconomic consequences associated with the No change 7.62
introduction of new technologies
66 —And enhancement of the ability to predict impacts of human intervention on forests No change 7.63
67 —And the ability to predict impacts on forests of possible climate change No change 7.64
An integrated approach to addressing Criterion 7 The forest policy and governance matrix
To analyze the written or stated forest policy content of laws,
Overall strategy regulations, and certification standards, we drew from theory
Efforts by the United States to address the components of and research on smart regulation (Gunningham, Grabosky, and
Criterion 7 have been complicated by the lack of information Sinclair 1998), forest regulatory rigor (Cashore and McDermott
sources to provide quantifiable data to establish baselines. Oth- 2004), analysis of policy instruments (Sterner 2003, Cubbage,
er Montréal Process Working Group Countries have had similar Harou, and Sills 2007), and non-State governance in sustainable
results with their efforts, resulting in the Working Group’s forestry (Cashore, Auld, and Newsom 2004). Based on this
current effort to revise the Criterion 7 indicators. Accordingly, literature McGinley (2008) developed a model for analyzing
this iteration of the U.S. report is an opportunity to bridge the forest policy structure of government regulation and forest
between past, current, and future indicators. To achieve this, we certification in Latin America. This structure was modified
have drawn on the thorough Criterion 7 analysis performed for to analyze Criterion 7 indicators. A component was added to
the National Report on Sustainable Forests—2003 (Ellefson et include the role of markets and market-based policy instruments
al., 2005—see supporting data report for citations referenced in setting institutional policy, per Sterner (2003) and Cubbage,
in this section), and then developed a new Forest Policy and Harou, and Sills (2007). Scale of policy and program imple-
Governance Matrix as a means to classify the relevant policies mentation was another consideration. The resulting two-sided
and levels of governance addressed in Criterion 7. These two classification schema became the matrix used to classify U.S.
approaches combine the detailed data analyses and summaries sustainable forest management institutions under Criterion 7
from the 2003 report with a theory-based forest policy model to (table Criterion 7.1).
provide better inferences about the indicators.

Using the matrix model A process-based policy identifies a particular process or series
The first column of the model displayed in table Criterion 7-1, of steps to be followed in pursuit of a management goal. It
mechanism, identifies the means (that is, mandatory, voluntary) typically promotes a more proactive, holistic approach than
through which policies and programs are implemented. The prescriptive-based policies.
second column denotes scale. The final four columns show
Performance-based policy specifies the management outcome
the policy structure. Policy structure refers to the approach
or level of performance that must be met, but does not
(prescriptive, process-based, performance-based, or private
prescribe the measures for attainment. It allows the duty holder
enterprise) that the policy employs. Each row in the mechanism
to determine the means to comply, permits innovation, and
column contains a code letter to add further detail to the ap-
accommodates changes in technology or organization.
proach columns, with the most prescriptive policies appearing
in the upper left of the matrix and the most voluntary appearing Private enterprise relies on voluntary market exchange to
in the lower right. To some extent these are continuous scales, allocate many of the forest resources in the world, both in
not categorical, but we used the categories to facilitate analysis private markets and for allocation of goods and services on
and discussion. public lands. Many new market-based conservation incentives
are being developed as well.
The scale of the institutional responses––national (N), regional (R),
State (S), or local (L)—is particularly relevant for Criterion 7
because wide variation exists among the 50 United States, Application
not to mention the numerous local government jurisdictions. The summaries from the 2003 report and the Forest Policy and
Furthermore, many U.S. approaches and institutions are actu- Governance Matrix are used as a framework to discuss each
ally determined by private markets, not government policies indicator in Criterion 7 and to make more general observations
and programs. Finally, substantial variation exists in the level about the U.S. legal and institutional approach to sustainable
of compulsion (termed mechanism in the model), and the ap- forest management. The effectiveness of the MP C&I in
proach, by State, county or parish, and municipal Governments. achieving sustainable forest management does rely ultimately
The analysis formed by the policy and governance matrix, on normative measures about the effectiveness of policies and
combined with the prior analyses performed for the 2003 report, institutions. The proper framework can enhance the rigor and
provides the basis for the text summarizing each indicator. clarity of this discussion and analysis, help clarify gaps and
These will then be updated to analyze revisions in Criterion 7, weaknesses in our institutions, and identify opportunities for
and for assessing trends in a more systematic manner. improvement in the pursuit of sustainable forest management.
Note that the matrix and associated discussion are intended to
As illustrated in table Criterion 7-1, a prescriptive policy summarize the institutional context, not to make policy recom-
mandates a preventive action or prescribes an approved mendations. Other parts of this report and related subsequent
technology be used in a specific situation. It generally allows implementation efforts, such as that by Sample et al. (2006),
little interpretation on part of the duty holder, offers administra- can provide appropriate means of considering policy responses.
tive simplicity and ease of enforcement, and is most appropriate
for problems where effective solutions are known and where
alternative courses of action are undesirable.
Table Criterion 7-1. U.S. Forest Policy and Governance Matrix by Geographic Scale, Mechanism, and Approach
(sample used for explanation).
Scale: Approach
National (N),
Mechanism Regional (R), Process or Performance or Private
Prescriptive
State (S), Systems Based Outcome Based Enterprise
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya
Informational/educationalb
Discretionary/voluntaryc
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede
a
Laws (L), Regulations or Rules (R), International Agreements (I), Government Ownership or Production (G).
b
Education (E), Technical Assistance (T), Research (R), Protection (P), Analysis and Planning (A).
c
Best Management Practices (B), Self-regulation (S).
d
Incentives (I), Subsidies (S), Taxes (T), Payments for Environmental Service (P).
e
Free enterprise, private market allocation of forest resources (M), or market based instruments and payments, including forest certification (C) wetland banks (W), cap-
and-trade (T), conservation easement or transfer of development rights (E).

Indicator 7.45. Extent to which the legal provide for wildlife habitat protection, recreation access, or
cumulative landscape effects, although these occur mostly in
framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) more urban and developed areas.
supports the conservation and sustainable
Clear property rights are arguably the fundamental requirement
management of forests, including the extent
for sustainable forest management, and a process to assign
to which it clarifies property rights, provides those rights, determine who controls and determines those
for appropriate land tenure arrangements, rights, and a means to resolve disputes must be clear and
recognizes customary and traditional rights accessible to all owners.
of indigenous people, and provides a means In the United States, property may be owned by any public or
of resolving property disputes by due process private organization, ranging from local private property owners,
to corporations, to national public lands to Native-American
What is the indicator and why is it important? land reservations. So the scale of ownership for land tenure in
the United States varies widely. Approximately 65 percent of
Stable property rights and the assurance that those rights will
all land in the United States is privately owned, and 35 percent
be protected, or disputed through due process, are essential for
is owned by various government sectors, including 28-percent
sustainable forest management. Those who depend on forests
Federal and 7-percent State and local government owners.
for daily subsistence and livelihood, or have a connection to
forests over long periods of time, will take responsibility for Holding clear and absolute title to land is provided by law
better long-term care of the land if they are able to own the in the United States, and the administrative services to track
forest or can be assured legal access to needed forest resources. ownership are usually provided by various local, county, or
parish governments. Land titles may be complete or partial,
What does the indicator show? depending on the bundle of rights that are conveyed with a
Property rights govern the ability of forest owners and other piece of property. Specific prescriptive laws govern the use and
landowners to acquire, manage, use, and dispose of their land transfer of land; legal processes of contracts and torts govern
and its products and services. These rights are exclusive, but how land rights are exercised or exchanged; and courts can
not absolute. Property and tenure rights are determined by the resolve disputes when they arise.
government, and may be changed at the behest of government Tenure rights are set by the government, but are not absolute. The
with due process that includes the interests of the community 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution protect the
and the landowners. Landowners’ tenure and property rights rights of private landowners from the taking of private property
are generally circumscribed by limits on externalities, such without due compensation. These amendments have rarely been
as preventing soil and water pollution, or on usufructuary involved in direct application to limits of forest regulations of
requirements to leave land in good condition for future genera- private landowner actions in legal challenges, but do provide
tions, such as seed tree or tree planting requirements. Broader significant checks on excessive government regulation.
landowner and zoning restrictions also have been made to
Table 45-1. Policy and Governance Classification.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S, L L, R, I, G L, R, G L, R, G G
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede N, S, L M, E
a
b
c
d
e

Many different products and services associated with the rights Indicator 7.46. Extent to which the legal
to land exist, and they may be, and often are, owned separately.
Rights to manage and protect forests may be separate from
framework (laws, regulations, guidelines)
rights to exploit minerals or extract oil or water, and often are supports the conservation and sustainable
subservient to more valuable uses, on both public and private management of forests, including the extent
lands. Landowners also may sell some or all of their land to which it provides for periodic forest-related
rights, for fixed periods or perpetuity.
planning, assessment, and policy review
Conservation easements have increased considerably in the that recognizes the range of forest values,
United States in the past decade. These easements usually set including coordination with relevant sectors
aside part of the land to protect it from development, and may
allow only passive uses such as recreation and hunting, or may
permit more active uses such as timber management. Private
markets, conservation groups, and government organizations The sustainability of forests depends on society’s ability to
negotiate prices, swaps, and loans for land and its produce, comprehensively evaluate trends and conditions in diverse
and these agreements are recorded as contracts, conditions on sectors and to subsequently take responsive actions that will
property titles, liens, or other legally binding instruments that ensure the sustained use, management, and protection of forest
reside with the land title. resources and the communities that are dependent on them.
These actions are typically predicated on well-focused and
Federal reservation lands held in trust for or owned by Native technically sound plans, assessments, and policy reviews that
Americans may be controlled by separate treaties, tribal laws are sensitive to a range of forest values and are coordinated
and regulations for management, sale, and acquisition, but still with a variety of forest-related sectors.
are subject to Federal environmental restrictions or laws.
All forest landowners, public and private, exercise their tenure What does the indicator show?
rights to achieve their forest land management goals to produce National, regional, State, and local governments perform
market and nonmarket goods and services. Clear title to the periodic forest planning, assessment, and policy reviews.
surface land, subsurface rights, water rights, and other assets Planning is a prescriptive requirement for all Federal land
is required to manage the resource, although complex, clear management agencies for the lands under their jurisdiction,
title is usually sufficient in the United States. In cases where and is similarly required in some fashion for most State and
disagreements about land rights occur, courts provide a means county forest lands. Some regional planning efforts also occur,
to settle these conflicts. voluntarily or not. These government planning efforts typically
have a required process, usually including some type of public
What has changed since 2003? input and appeals. Private landowners do not have required
No notable national laws changed forest property rights and forest planning. Although many large companies and landown-
tenure since 2003. Some significant changes, however, in land ers do plan as part of business, specific planning processes are
ownership and conservation uses have continued. At least 10 not required for these landowners.
million acres of land was sold by forest product industries to The Federal and State governments also write Federal or State
timber investment organizations since 2005. These sales have forest plans for private forest lands in the country or State. But
been partially attributed to an unfavorable tax treatment of these plans do not usually dictate or create mandatory rules,
timber income in vertically integrated forest products firms regulations, incentives, or other government interventions in
compared to other investor classes. markets. Instead, these plans generally summarize information
Also, more conservation easements are being made to protect about forest resource conditions and trends; identify issues and
rural forest and agricultural land from development. These con- opportunities; and suggest possible policies that could enhance
servation easements and land trusts may conserve entire properties sustainable forest management. Exceptions to this trend do
or at least the development rights. Government organizations occur, such as the Chesapeake Bay Area Planning, which
and nongovernmental organizations have been active in purchas- spawned many environmental regulations in the Maryland
ing these forest lands or partial use rights for conservation use. and Virginia area to protect the coastal waters, including some
In this case, favorable tax treatment at the State and Federal regulations that directly affect forest land use.
levels, which allow the deduction of the value of conservation Educational, research, and analysis policy mechanisms are
gifts, has been credited with increasing sales or gifts of land. usually an integral part of forest planning efforts, at all scales

from national to local. These policies provide education to Implementation Committees (SICs) to promote sustainable
forest managers and policymakers on forest conditions, threats, forestry at the grassroots level; requires procurement organiza-
and management responses. Various incentives have been tions to implement relevant indicators; and has extensive
provided for private or public forest landowners to meet the periodic standards reviews and public input processes. ATFS,
recommendations contained in forest plans. with about 29 million acres, has periodic program reviews and
public input.
The State and the Federal Governments provide data and
information about forests, laws, regulations, State forest plan-
ning, public forestry programs, forestry and logger training, and What has changed since 2003?
public education efforts. The universities coordinate in delivery National forest planning has undergone major revisions since
of forestry programs and cooperate with States in outreach the 2003 report. First, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
and extension efforts. Federal funding and technical expertise (HFRA) was passed in 2003. HFRA contains a variety of
provide assistance to State forestry programs, and community provisions to speed up hazardous-fuel reduction and forest-
development and public land management of the national forests. restoration planning and projects on specific types of Federal
land that are at risk of wildland fire and insect and disease
Forest management plans are required in private market epidemics.
certification under all the forest certification systems in the
country. Since 1993, when forest certification began, the Forest Following HFRA, the Forest Service also developed an
Stewardship Council (FSC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative extensive new forest planning rule that was released initially
(SFI), and American Tree Farm System (ATFS) have certified in 2005, then revised and released in final form in 2008. That
about 108 million acres in the United States as of 2008. About rule was designed to expedite forest planning and reduce
60 million acres were certified in the United States in 2003, appeals and implement an environmental management system
which did not include the ATFS at that time. FSC requires (EMS). The rule was released in 2008 at the end of the previous
the release of the complete forest management plan for and administration, but was under consideration for revocation and
audit report of the certified forest; SFI requires the posting of a return to the previous planning rules.
summary of the audit report for each forest.
Various other planning changes have occurred to encourage
All forest certification programs incorporate public consulta- habitat conservation of threatened and endangered species; to
tion in the planning and execution of their programs in some set aside various Federal lands for archaeological, wilderness,
fashion. FSC, with about 24 million acres, requires consultation scenic rivers, national trails, and wildlife refuges; to protect
with external stakeholders on each forest management plan wetlands; and to govern surface mining and reclamation.
through local meetings and requests for input sent to stakehold-
Planning for private forest and farm lands has been authorized
ers on each forest management plan, and in periodic program
in several components of the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bill, and
revisions. SFI, with about 55 million acres certified in the
is implemented through cooperation with State and Federal
United States, may consult with external stakeholders in the
forestry and natural resource conservation agencies.
audit process as deemed appropriate; works through its SFI

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, R, S, L L, R, I, G L, R, I, G
Informational/educationalb R, N, S, L E, R, A E, R, A E, R, A
Fiscal/economicd N, S I
Market basede L M
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.47. Extent to which the legal Federal agencies also provide educational, technical assistance,
research, and assessment support for sustainable forestry and
framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) public participation at the national level, as do many States.
supports the conservation and sustainable This support includes mandates for State forest resource
management of forests, including the extent planning and input, and support through the U.S. Department
to which it provides opportunities for public of Agriculture.
participation in public policy and decision The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
making related to forests and public access requires an analysis of major Federal actions significantly
affecting the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement
to information
is required for proposed major Federal actions. A categorical
exclusion exists for small projects that do not require individual
EIS. An Environmental Assessment (EA) may be performed
Forests may be managed more sustainably if citizens have if the agency does not know if its effects will be significant.
responsibility for their use, management, and protection. If The EA may require an EIS if actions are significant, or lead
citizens are given an opportunity to identify areas of interest to a finding of no significant impacts (FONSI) if not. NEPA
and concern about forests, they are more likely to support the provides for public comment on the EIS and EA processes
management of forests and the principles of sustainability. in the scoping and preparation of the draft EIS, and a formal
Public participation processes can foster practical and political comment process before the final EIS is issued.
support for sustainable management. Access to timely, com-
plete, and accurate information about forests, forest resources, If the general public or individuals are dissatisfied with the lack
and socioeconomic trends will enhance those participatory of openness of Federal public records, they may seek redress
processes and promote better forest management. through legal actions such as requesting evidentiary documen-
tation and other information under the Freedom of Information
What does the indicator show? Act (FOIA). Similar laws exist in most States. Legal issues that
employ these measures are uncommon in natural resources, but
Federal agencies all provide some level of opportunity for
not unheard of.
public participation in policy and decisionmaking, and varying
levels of access to information. The Administrative Procedures Finally, as noted in 7-46, the forest certification systems have
Act of 1946 provides public oversight of Federal agencies, various means to seek consultation with external stakeholders,
including public comment on proposed rules; a rigorous redress complaints, report progress, and update their standards
process of draft publication, and public review; required agency periodically.
response to comments; and final publication in the Federal
Register. This process leads to final rules with a reviewable What has changed since 2003?
record and science basis. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and the 2005 and
States usually have similar but less rigorous open process 2008 National Forest Planning Rules each enacted new rules
and information laws. Local government entities eventually that affected forest planning and public input. Generally, each
must respond to citizen’s interest, but seldom have prescribed of the changes in the regulations was intended to simplify
measures for public input to forest planning. Nonindustrial public input procedures so that agency managers could expedite
private landowners are not required to consult other interests forest management practices. These changes have been con-
or owners in making decisions or release information publicly, tested by environmental interest groups, in general and in the
although many businesses do as part of their annual reports and courts. The issue regarding the level of consultation required is
other communications. complex, but HFRA and the 2005 and 2008 planning rules have
Extensive public participation for national forest planning is allowed somewhat more discretion to the agency, which has
required as part of the U.S. National Forest Management Act been circumscribed, but partially supported, by court decisions.
of 1976 (191 million acres), as amended by the Healthy Forest Concomitantly, increasing public support exists for greater lev-
Restoration Act of 2003. The Bureau of Land Management, els of stakeholder involvement in a variety of public decisions.
with 266 million acres, requires planning and local advisory Public policy input and governance processes have become
boards for input. Other Federal agencies, including the U.S. prevalent from the local to the national level, across a range of
Fish and Wildlife Service (84 million acres), National Park ownership types and forest resource decisions. These processes
Service (84 million acres), and Department of Defense have have included government decisionmaking, and private market
varying levels of planning and public participation that affects systems such as forest certification.
their lands, including forests.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S, L L, R, G L, R G L, R, G
Informational/educationalb N, S, L E, T, R A
Fiscal/economicd N, S I
Market basede R, N, L C C
a
b
c
d
e
Indicator 7.48. Extent to which the legal have educational and technical assistance programs for BMPs
aimed at water quality, timber-harvesting methods, protecting
framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) wildlife and endangered species; and more than 40 have such
supports the conservation and sustainable programs to enhance recreation and aesthetic qualities.
Even States that do not have legally required BMPs often
to which it encourages best practice codes have water quality laws intended to control surface erosion
for forest management into water bodies of the State, and can be used to enforce
BMP compliance. Local governments also implement BMPs
What is the indicator and why is it important? for private forest lands, along with other land use controls on
Forest management practices that are well designed are fun- development, agriculture, or mining.
damental to the sustainability of forest resources. At all levels BMPs may be prescriptive and mandatory, as required in the
(stand, landscape, local, regional, national, and global), forests State forest practice laws of all the States on the West Coast
depend on the application of forest practices that are capable and many in the Northeast; may require that forest managers
of ensuring sustained use, management, and protection of im- and loggers follow specific processes, such as in Virginia; or
portant social, economic, and biological values. Well-founded may be performance or outcome based, ensuring that water
best practice codes, and the forest management practices that quality is protected, such as in North Carolina.
comprise them, can ensure sustained forest productivity for
market goods; protection of ecological values; and protection BMPs may cover a variety of practices, such as timber harvest,
of the various social, cultural, and spiritual values offered road construction, fire, site preparation and planting, and insect
by forests. They can be among the most important tools for and disease protection. They also may cover diverse natural
responding to national trends and conditions involving forests. resources to be protected, such as water quality, air quality,
wildlife, endangered species, or visual impacts.
What does the indicator show? Although BMPs are pervasive, differences of opinion exist
National, State, and local government landowners, and all about their effectiveness. Almost all forestry compliance
private landowners, have various levels of recommended or surveys have found a high overall rate of compliance for most
required forest best management practices (BMPs). BMPs may landowners, but environmental groups contend that many
be implemented through educational, voluntary guidelines, individual practices, such as road-building or wildlife habitat
technical assistance, tax incentives, fiscal incentives, or regula- impacts, remain problematical.
tory approaches. The Federal Government and most States provide detailed
Ellefson et al (2005) provide detailed summary of BMPs, albeit technical assistance for information and education about BMPs,
for 1992, but it can provide a guide for types of programs now. and research about efficacy, benefits, and costs. The private
More than 25 States have regulatory forestry BMPs to protect sector––including forest industry, large timberland investors,
water quality and to protect landowners from wildfire, insects, nonindustrial private forest owners, and forest consultants––
and diseases. Almost all States (greater than or equal to 45) have been actively involved in development and promotion

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S, L L, R, G L, R, G L, R
Informational/educationalb N, S, L P, T, R E, T, R E, T, R
Discretionary/voluntaryc N, S B B B B, S
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede N, S, L C
a
b
c
d
e
of BMPs. BMP compliance also is required as part of the Indicator 7.49. Extent to which the legal
standards of all three major forest certification standards in the framework (laws, regulations, guidelines)
United States: the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC), and American Tree Farm System.
supports the conservation and sustainable
What has changed since 2003? to which it provides for the management of
Voluntary and regulatory State best management practices for forests to conserve special environmental,
forestry have continued to evolve and improve since 2003. cultural, social, and/or scientific values
They have been evaluated periodically through on-the-ground
effectiveness surveys, and periodically revised. Their scope What is the indicator and why is it important?
has been extended in some States to cover more than just
Forests often possess unique or otherwise special social,
timber harvesting and roads to include wildlife, landscape
cultural, scientific, and environmental values. Formal legal
level effects, or aesthetics. Enforcement has increased through
mechanisms are often needed to protect those values from
inspections, even in States with voluntary BMPs. Several States
certain uses and activities. Because the values to be protected
also have issued separate BMPs for biomass fuel harvesting.
are often large in number and wide in scope, the resulting legal
BMPs are now explicitly required under all forest certification
framework is frequently complicated and broadly dispersed
systems in the United States.
among Federal, State, and local governments.

National, State, and local laws, along with international agree-
ments, are used to identify sites (forested and otherwise) with
special environmental, cultural, social, and scientific values
and to provide for their management. For Federal, State, and
local government ownerships, these laws are usually manda-
tory and prescriptive, being the strictest on Federal lands. At
a minimum, the government may require that such lands be
considered in forest planning and protection through an explicit
or implicit process. The government may also require specific
regulations to protect sites with special values, or at least
require that an acceptable outcome or level of protection be
achieved.
International agreements, including the World Heritage
agreement and Ramsar (for wetlands), also identify sites of
interest and require Federal efforts to protect them on Federal

lands. Special designations by the United Nations Man and the Forest certification has explicit standards for protecting special
Biosphere Program and various nongovernmental organiza- sites listed under this indicator. Wetland banks also provide
tion (such as the World Wildlife Fund biodiversity hotspots) a mechanism to do so, under a de facto cap-and-trade system
encourage the protection of sites of particular value. where no net loss of wetlands is permitted (the cap), and devel-
opers must purchase wetland credits to offset any destruction or
A variety of Federal, State, and local government informational
loss that does occur (the trade).
policies encourage protection of special sites. These include
educational and technical assistance programs about the sites The standards in forest certification and in creating wetland
for private owners, designation of sites as protected areas, banks are prescriptive, mandatory rules and are performance
research regarding protection and management, and planning based. A variety of market based mechanisms, including free
and analysis to provide protection. Private landowners often trade, cap-and-trade, forest certification, wetland banks, or
are not required to protect these sites, but large corporate and conservation easement mechanisms, may protect special sites
timber investors often do––as part of their commitment to on private lands.
corporate social responsibility.
Some Federal, State, and nongovernment organizations also What has changed since 2003?
provide incentives such as tax breaks or subsidy payments to Various changes have occurred to encourage habitat conserva-
protect these special sites on private lands. These incentives tion of threatened and endangered species; to set aside Federal
include programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives lands to protect archaeological resources, wilderness areas,
Program in the Federal farm bill, or conservation easements scenic rivers, national trails, and wildlife refuges; to protect
obtained by NGOs, or wetland banking and payment systems wetlands; and to govern surface mining and reclamation.
throughout the country. Many other special values are protected These conservation efforts include the explicit designation of
through forest laws and policies, including old growth forests, individual wilderness, scenic rivers, national trail system, or
wilderness areas, endangered and threatened species, or archeological areas.
archeological sites.
Increased Federal conservation support also includes a large
Use of forests for carbon storage, either through reduced amount of Federal funding through agency budgets and grants
emissions from forest degradation and destruction or through to private forest landowners, particularly through the 2002 and
direct afforestation and reforestation, has been the most salient 2008 Farm Bills. The Farm Bills also have substantially increased
new proposed environmental objective for forests. International incentives for programs that provide environmental services.
conferences and accords to control global climate change have The IRS Code also allows for tax deductions with qualified
focused on forest emissions and carbon storage. The United conservation easements or with land donations to land trusts.
States has developed a small private market through the Chicago
Climate Exchange, and funded some individual forestry tree
planting projects to offset carbon emissions in the country.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S, L L, R, I, G L, R, I, G L, R, G R
Informational/educationalb N, S, L E, T, P, R, A
Discretionary/voluntaryc N, S, L S
Fiscal/economicd N, S, L I, T, P I, T, P
Market basede R, N, S, L C, W C, W W, T, M, C, E
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.50—Extent to which the institu- education, and a plethora of local governments run such
programs for the general public and school children.
tional framework supports the conservation
and sustainable management of forests, Many entities provide information and education about forests
as part of their ongoing educational, technical assistance,
including the capacity to provide for public
research, forest protection, and planning efforts. These entities
involvement activities and public education, include not only government, schools, and universities but also
awareness, and extension programs, and most environmental nongovernmental organization, such as
make available forest-related information forestry associations, professional societies, forestry interest
groups, broad conservation organizations, and environmental
What is the indicator and why is it important? activist groups.
Well-informed, knowledgeable citizens and forest owners Outreach and education also are required as part of forest
create a foundation of support for applying principles of certification systems. And many companies have some
sustainable forest management. To accomplish such a purpose environmental education activities and facilities, although these
requires institutional conditions (agencies and organizations) have dwindled with the decrease in vertically integrated forest
that are capable of promoting programs considered necessary products firms that own forest land.
to inform the public and private forest owners about forest
resource sustainability. What has changed since 2003?
Various changes have occurred in public education, awareness,
What does the indicator show? and extension programs for forestry since 2003. Continued
Federal, State, and local government programs exist that agency budgets are authorized under the Federal and State
provide education, awareness, and extension programs. Most budget process, and these have been relatively stable since
conspicuously, the Cooperative Extension Service is a nation- 2003. In addition, funds continue to be provided under the
wide partnership between the Federal Government, individual 2002 and 2008 Farm Bill. These changes have been largely
States, and local counties. This program has forestry as one of incremental, based on budget authorizations, rather than based
its components, although agriculture and rural development, on any new legislation. A shift in focus occurred in the last
and consumer and home economics are perhaps more promi- period, with more efforts devoted to conservation programs,
nent in many parts of the country. The United States also has ecosystem services, and public involvement, and less to forest
separate State efforts for environmental and natural resource productivity.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S, L L, R, G
Informational/educationalb N, S, L E, T, R, P, A E, R, A, T
Fiscal/economicd N, S, L
Market basede N, L C
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.51. Extent to which the institu- National, regional, State, and local governments perform peri-
odic forest planning, assessment, and policy reviews. Planning
tional framework supports the conservation is required as a prescriptive for all Federal land agencies for
and sustainable management of forests, lands under their jurisdiction, and is similarly required in some
including the capacity to undertake and fashion for most State and county forest lands. Some regional
implement periodic forest-related planning, planning efforts also occur, voluntarily or not. These govern-
ment planning efforts typically have a required process, usually
assessment, and policy review, including
including some type of public input and appeals. Inter-sectoral
cross-sectoral planning coordination consultation and planning is frequently required as part of the
process. The Federal and State governments also write Federal
What is the indicator and why is it important? or State forest plans for private forest lands in the country or
The sustainability of forests depends on society’s institutional State. These plans usually do not dictate or create mandatory
ability to comprehensively evaluate trends and conditions in rules, regulations, incentives, or other government interventions
diverse sectors and to subsequently make responses that will in markets. Instead, they generally summarize information
ensure the sustained use, management, and protection of forest about forest resource conditions and trends; identify issues and
resources and the communities that depend on them. Such opportunities; and suggest possible policies that could enhance
actions are typically predicated on institutional conditions that sustainable forest management.
foster well-focused and technically sound plans, assessments,
Educational, research, and analysis policy mechanisms are
and policy reviews that are sensitive to a range of forest values
usually an integral part of forest planning efforts, at all scales
and that are coordinated with a variety of forest-related sectors.
from national to local. These policies provide education to
forest managers and policymakers on forest conditions, threats,
What does the indicator show? and management responses. Various incentives have been
Indicator 7.51 is quite similar to Indicator 7.46 in that it is provided for private or public forest landowners to meet the
related to forest planning and policy review, although perhaps recommendations contained in forest plans.
with a slightly narrower focus. As a result, the following
paraphrases the presentation given for Indicator 7.46. These What has changed since 2003?
two indicators are apt to be consolidated in future revisions of
The changes in this planning indicator are similar to those for
the MP C&I.
Indicator 7.46.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S, L L, R, I, G L, R, I
Informational/educationalb N, S E, R, A E, R, A E, R, A
Discretionary/voluntaryc N S
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede L M
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.52. Extent to which the institu- Similarly, education is provided for forest resource profes-
sionals, in addition to field forest workers. This professional
tional framework supports the conservation education effort is led by accredited forestry programs in most
and sustainable management of forests, States and complemented by research and extension efforts.
including the capacity to develop and main- Bachelor of Science and graduate degree programs associated
tain human resource skills across relevant with this effort are often complemented by State registration
and licensing programs or the national Society of American
disciplines
Foresters Certified Forester program.
What is the indicator and why is it important? Professional education is offered for other forest-related
The extensive knowledge and skills applied by people who disciplines, including wildlife and fisheries, natural resources,
are engaged in the development and implementation of forest soils and hydrology, environmental sciences, ecology, and oth-
resource policies and programs are critical to accomplishing ers. Several of these, but not all, have professional certification
the wide-ranging goals of forest sustainability and conserva- or registration procedures. Some private and public institutions
tion. These disciplinary and resource skills are developed via offer forestry programs as well, for field operators, technicians,
formal educational programs for field workers, technical staff, and professionals.
and natural resource professionals, and via professional work As of 2009, 2,244 certified foresters were recognized by the
experiences and access to continuing education opportunities. Society of American Foresters. This number included forestry
consultants (25 percent), personnel in private industry (24 percent),
What does the indicator show? State and local government (19 percent), Federal Government
Various national and State laws and regulations exist that affect (9 percent), and college and university (7 percent), along with
worker safety and training in the forestry sector. Most laws and retirees (7 percent) and other (9 percent). There also were 15
regulations would fall under the auspices of the Occupational States with separate forestry registration laws and thousands
Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and similar State of registered foresters; most programs required continuing
agencies. Related laws cover highway and trucking safety education as part of their requirements. Similarly, The Wildlife
and operator licensing. These laws require the use of safety Society had 3,658 certified wildlife biologists in 2009.
equipment, training in safe operations, and now, use of Best
Management Practices to avoid adverse environmental impacts. What has changed since 2003?
Most of the actual education and training is conducted by Laws and regulations affecting human resources and skills have
States, either through their educational institutions such as continued to evolve incrementally over the last decade. State
Land Grant universities or community colleges, or through efforts to improve trucking and logger training are pervasive,
their industry trade associations in cooperation with the and rules about trucking safety and regulations are common.
relevant State agencies. They also offer technical assistance, Forest certification has affected training for foresters and in
research on better methods and procedures, and planning to particular for persons who perform audits. Some State forestry
improve performance. registration laws have been eliminated or threatened as part of
periodic State budget cuts and reviews.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S L, R L, R, G
Informational/educationalb N, S E, T, R, A E E, R
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede N, L M M M
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.53. Extent to which the institutional Some informational and educational mechanisms are required
by law and could include technical assistance and research
framework supports the conservation and to provide adequate facilities and forest infrastructure such
sustainable management of forests, including as roads, firebreaks, fire-fighting gear, and forest harvesting
the capacity to develop and maintain equipment. Often such infrastructure is required in terms of the
efficient physical infrastructure to facilitate process for developing adequate capacity for forestry activities.
the supply of forest products and services Private sector firms develop physical infrastructure and provide
and to support forest management institutional capacity through private market, free enterprise
efforts. They develop internal firm or trade association rules,
What is the indicator and why is it important? processes, or outcome guidelines as necessary, with either
voluntary compliance or self-regulation, including through for-
Capital resources of physical infrastructure (e.g., roads,
est certification. Their ultimate success in developing efficient
utilities, and processing facilities) are essential to the manage-
infrastructure is measured by market performance and profits,
ment of forests and ultimately to economic development and
in the long run.
quality of life in rural forested areas. Investments in public
infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, sewer and sanitation Direct government subsidies have seldom been employed in
systems, schools, parks, and other physical facilities, are developing private forestry infrastructure, but many parts of the
important government initiatives that complement the capital Federal tax code related to accelerated depreciation, tax deduc-
investments of private firms. Together, these investments tions, and tax credits promote investments and manufacturing
constitute the capital basis for protecting forests and related plants and facilities and in-woods equipment.
resources and for producing the goods and services that sustain
economies of forested areas. Some people have suggested that What has changed since 2003?
forest ecosystems per se can be considered a form of green
Due to more frequent large forest fires, the budget for national
infrastructure.
forests has been increasingly dedicated to firefighting. This
shift in the allocation of resources has enhanced firefighting
What does the indicator show? capacity, but deleteriously affected funding for other main-
The development and maintenance of adequate physical tenance and ongoing operations in the agency. The Federal
infrastructure to facilitate the supply of forest products and economic stimulus package in 2009 included substantial funds
services to support forest management is the responsibility of for forestry infrastructure, with an allocation of $1.1 billion to
governments who own public lands, teach, or perform research, be spent on national forests, forest health projects, and related
and of private sector firms and forest owners who manage State and private projects. There was a modest decline in tree
forests or forest products manufacturing facilities. Provisions to planting in the United States in the mid-2000s, but appears that
meet this responsibility are generally prescriptive for govern- total tree planting has increased slightly in the past 2 years.
ment forest management, education, and research activities, Most other changes in forestry infrastructure at the State or
and largely performance or outcome based for private sector private level have not been notable.
forest managers.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S, L L, R, G
Informational/educationalb N, S T, R T, R, A
Discretionary/voluntaryc S, L B B B S
Fiscal/economicd T
Market basede N, L M M, C
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.54. Extent to which the institu- agencies monitor compliance with forest practice acts, BMP
use, and water quality laws. These regulations directly affect
tional framework supports the conservation private and public lands, and may involve up to several thousand
and sustainable management of forests, inspections of forest operations each year in many States.
including the capacity to enforce laws,
Education, technical assistance, and research are used to help
regulations, and guidelines in the training of forestry professionals, monitoring of laws and
regulations, and continuous improvement of the mandatory and
What is the indicator and why is it important? voluntary practices. These policy mechanisms are used both
Market processes allocate many forest resources. Laws, rules, for the public and private forest land managers who implement
and regulations are needed, however, to provide the framework the laws, and for the professionals who monitor, inspect, and
necessary to maintain competitive markets even for private enforce the rules and regulations.
forests, and more than one-third of U.S. forests are publicly
Private sector firms comply with mandatory laws and with
owned. Effective laws, regulations, and guidelines should
voluntary guidelines. Frequent surveys have found that BMP
promote tenure rights, sustainable forest management, environ-
compliance rates are very high in all States, as is compliance
mental protection, and a competitive market environment.
with laws and regulations. Similarly, forest certification
provides a clear means to demonstrate that private and public
What does the indicator show? forestry organizations conform to the standards and guidelines
Laws, regulations, and guidelines for sustainable forest for sustainable forest management.
management in the United States are enforced adequately. U.S.
laws differ widely among regions and landowner types, ranging What has changed since 2003?
from detailed laws and regulations for national forests and for
No major Federal or outstanding laws have been enacted that
all lands governed by the State forest practice acts in the West
affect forest law enforcement and governance. Continued pres-
Coast to voluntary Best Management Practices in the Southern
sure on Federal budgets, as noted regarding the fire budgets,
and Midwestern States.
may have reduced U.S. forest law enforcement capacity, but no
Federal Government forest lands have complex laws and policies empirical studies are available. Compliance with Federal, State,
governing forest management, biodiversity, public input, and and local laws is a required indicator in all of the U.S. forest
workforce diversity. Private landowners must comply with certification systems.
the relevant mandatory and voluntary standards. State forestry

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S, L L, R, I, G L, R, I, G R
Informational/educationalb N, S, L E, R, T E, R, T
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede N, S, L M, C
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.55. Extent to which the economic income receives an accelerated tax deduction for reforestation
and planting, rather than waiting for the end of a harvest rota-
framework (economic policies and measures) tion to apply the deduction as a cost of business. This Federal
supports the conservation and sustainable tax treatment is carried over to the State income taxes.
management of forests through investment
Property tax treatment for forest land owners is also generally
and taxation policies and a regulatory envi- favorable for active forest land owners and managers, although
ronment that recognizes the long-term this does vary substantially among States and even within
nature of investments and permits the flow States. Property tax rates without special tax treatment can
of capital in and out of the forest sector be almost punitive, at up to $30 to $50 per acre per year. But
most States offer current use of forest use valuation, which
in response to market signals, nonmarket reduces these high rates to less than $10 per acre, at least for
economic valuations, and public policy deci- landowners who meet program criteria and guarantee to enroll
sions in order to meet long-term demands for a fixed program length. Some States also tax timber as real
for forest products and services property, but offset the increasing tax values by collecting a
yield tax on the timber portion of the asset, and only the land is
taxed at actual assessed values.
The sustainability of forests and the many benefits they are Many forest incentive programs also promote forest investments
capable of providing requires high levels of sustained invest- in timber, conservation, or other environmental activities. The
ment in their management and protection. Investments are periodic Federal farm bill has increasingly incorporated provi-
driven by a number of economy wide factors and government sions for tree planting, crop retirement, and environmental land
policies, including product or service costs and prices, capital use programs in each of its authorizations and appropriations
costs, management efficiency, forest land productivity, and tax since the 1960s. Recent relevant Federal farm bill programs
and incentive policies. included the Conservation Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program,
and the Forest Stewardship Program. Funding for forestry in
these programs has been somewhat limited, at least until the
The United States has a wide variety of investment and taxation 2008 Farm Bill, which authorized more participation for forest
policies that favor long-term forest resource investments, and wildlife practices, although actual implementation is pend-
provide consistent market based incentives and signals, and ing. Almost 20 States also provide State incentive payments
provide some payments for investments in nonmarket values. to landowners who plant trees or perform qualifying forest
These are provided at the national, State, and local level, management and planning activities.
affecting income taxes, property taxes, and the production of
a variety of forest resource goods and services. The regulatory Informational and educational programs promote participation
environment is addressed in other indicators, and ranges from in these programs, including program enrollment processes,
strict regulations on public lands and mountainous West Coast forest practice requirements, and cost-share payment rates.
States to moderate regulations in the Northeast to voluntary Research and protection programs help ensure that these incen-
best management practices (BMPs) in States with mostly tives and practices remain productive and secure, and extensive
private forest lands in the South and East. Prescriptive regula- Federal and State planning and program development provide
tions occur at the Federal level for Federal lands, and State the foundations for program delivery.
level for State and private lands. These include requirements
Private market policy tools also address timber production,
for specific BMPs and for notification, harvesting permits, and
ecosystem goods and services production, and environmental
timber management plans in a few States.
protection for sustainable forest management. These specifi-
Federal and State income tax policies for timber production are cally include market based programs such as forest certification
generally more favorable than for other sources of income, such for sustainable forest management, wetlands banks for wetland
as wages and salaries. For active investors, timber management functions and values, cap-and-trade for carbon storage or
expenses may be deducted as a cost of business, similar to Endangered Species Protection, conservation easements for
agricultural operations. Timber income is currently taxed at a fixed term or permanent protection from development, and
long-term capital gains rate that is less than the marginal tax even outright purchase of forest lands by nongovernmental
rates for middle income or higher level individuals. Timber organization or government organizations.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S, L L, R, I, G L, R L, R, G
Informational/educationalb N, S R, P, A R, P, A
Fiscal/economicd N, S, L I, S, T I, S, T, P I, S, T, P
Market basede N, S, L C, W, T, E, M
a
b
c
d
e
What has changed since 2003? and real estate investment trusts, which has been attributed to
leading partially to the sale of much land to timber investment
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 changed Federal management organizations (TIMOs) and real estate investment
reforestation tax incentives for private forest landowners trusts (REITs).
somewhat. Landowners were allowed to increase the amount of
they could deduct each year, and the excess could be amortized State forest property taxes continue to fund State and local
over an 8-year period. Landowners were also allowed to services, and have increased in many jurisdictions as the
receive capital gains treatment for timber income from lump demand for services rises rapidly. Debates over tax levels and
sum sales and for sales per unit of volume. Federal tax law still equity occur, and changes in State laws for timber and current
taxed vertically integrated forest products firms at rates greater use valuation occur periodically.
than those for timber investment management organizations

Indicator 7.56. Extent to which the economic in 2004, with almost 90 percent of this coming from Canada.
U.S. trade is governed partially by the North American Free
framework (economic policies and measures) Trade Agreement (NAFTA), by some accords under the World
supports the conservation and sustainable Trade Organization (WTO), and by agreements stemming from
management of forests through investment General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). The legal
and taxation policies and a regulatory Canadian-U.S. lumber dispute reached a fragile resolution in
2006, and remains in force, but with continuing issues.
environment that recognizes the long-term
nature of investments and permits nondis- The United States also participates in international agreements
criminatory trade policies for forest products that have environmental and social objectives. The Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) protects
endangered fauna and flora; Ramsar protects endangered
What is the indicator and why is it important? wetlands; the North American Migratory Bird Treaty acts
This indicator provides information about U.S. trade policies to protect those bird species whose migration routes include
and how they may affect markets in ways that can affect North America; and NAFTA and Central American Free Trade
sustainable forest management. If trade policies, such as import Agreements (CAFTA) include environmental protection and
or export quotas, mask market signals that affect domestic worker protection standards. Private sector forest products firms
timber harvest, these policies may adversely affect economic, and forest landowners generally operate completely within
social, or environmental components of sustainable forest these laws, rules, regulations, and international agreements
management.
What does the indicator show? The U.S. Lacey Act of 1900 forbade import of foreign animal
Trade policies are obviously the purview of the Federal or interstate commerce in illegally taken wild animals or
Government, both as logic dictates and as stated explicitly in birds. The Lacey Act was extended in the 2008 Farm Bill to
the U.S. Constitution. Many national and international laws, combat imports of illegal flora from other countries. This act
rules, regulations, and international agreements address trade in was enacted as a means to control illegal logging and is being
forest products, protection of endangered species and important implemented with detailed regulations, as of 2009.
natural habitats, and potential discrimination. The United States
is a net forest products importer, but also exports considerable Concerns with nontrade barriers such as phytosanitary stan-
amount of wood as well. The United States imports mostly dards and how illegal logging strictures under the 2008 Lacey
sawn wood and panels, and exports pulp, paper, and round- Act Amendments still require temperate policy responses and
wood, but exports much less than it imports on a volume basis. monitoring to ensure that fair trade continues. The WTO, for
instance promotes free trade, and adjudicates disputes among
Trade from Canada and the United States has been contentious. countries, but recognizes that each case must be considered
The United States imported about 39 percent of its sawn carefully.
wood consumption and 28 percent of its panel consumption

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S L, R, I L, R, I L, R, I
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede N M
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.57. Capacity to measure and national scale, and 17 had partial data at the national scale. The
rest had data available only at the State or local scale, if at all.
monitor changes in the conservation and
sustainable management of forests, including Federal, State, and university research and assessments
contribute to the availability and extent of the Montréal Process
availability and extent of up-to-date data,
statistics, and help foster continuous improvement of the data
statistics, and other information important to generated within the budget constraints. Forestry sector private
measuring or describing indicators firms and landowners also contribute to such efforts through
voluntary reporting and cooperation with Federal partners.
What is the indicator and why is it important? Private sector organizations also provide various production
This indicator assesses the availability of information needed and trade statistics to forest industry trade associations, which
to measure or describe the indicators associated with Criteria 1 compile and publish the statistics annually or periodically.
through 7. Successful implementation of the criteria and indica- Certified forest organizations also report some management
tor concept requires the availability of information to report on data, at least, and perhaps most of their management planning
the indicators. information. The full management plans for firms certified by
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) are available from Web
What does the indicator show? sources, and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) provides
Compilation and development of up-to-date data, statistics, and a summary of the certification audits for forest management
other information is mostly a Federal Government responsibil- certificate holders.
ity, with some data collected by States as well. Various laws
and regulations govern data collection, analysis, and release. What has changed since 2003?
For example, the Federal Renewable Resource Planning Act The national Forest Service FIA data system has converted most
(RPA) mandates data collection and analysis to monitor the of its national data collection efforts from a periodic survey
trends of the forest conditions in the United States. The Federal of each State to a continuous effort that samples a portion of
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program measures forest each sample frame each year. This shift to continuous sampling
inventories, forest health, and selected forest resource charac- provides some data each year, and over an extended period
teristics in the United States. FIA also collects and publishes should provide continual data with similar accuracy. The Forest
much of the forest products production data in the United Service Forest Health Monitoring data efforts have also been
States These data are complemented with trade data from the integrated into the FIA data system, and subsample a portion
Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) and the National Resource of the same FIA plots, only with more detailed measurements
Lands Inventory (NRLI), which measures land use and change to monitor forest health over time. Various updates in data
for all lands in the United States. collection have also been implemented specifically to support
As of the National Report on Sustainable Forests—2003, 5 of the Montréal Process reporting effort. FIA soil sampling to
the 67 Montréal Process indicators had data available at the address Criterion 4 is a notable example of this.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, S L, R, G
Informational/educationalb R, N, S R, A R, A
Discretionary/voluntaryc N, R, S, L S
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede N, S, L M, C
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.58. Capacity to measure and Although some indicators have a full suite of current data, that
are national in scope, and collected frequently, many do not. In
monitor changes in the conservation some cases, this is the result of a lack of systematic data collec-
and sustainable management of forests, tion, in others, the indicator in question may not be amenable to
including scope, frequency, and statistical a concise, quantified presentation, and systematic data collec-
reliability of forest inventories, assessments, tion activities would likely not be possible even if sufficient
resources were available. Often, in these cases, proxy data have
monitoring, and other relevant information
been used to provide some information to address the indicator.
Certain proxy data series may have excellent characteristics
What is the indicator and why is it important? (e.g., high reporting frequency and national consistency), but
Public discussion and decisions related to natural resource their applicability in measuring the underlying indicator will
sustainability issues should be based on comprehensive, vary depending on the indicator in question.
current, and sound data. Information regarding the frequency,
coverage, and reliability of data provides analysts with critical The current status of data for each indicator is summarized in
information for evaluating and prioritizing sustainability needs. the table below along with its status as recorded in the 2003
report (table 58-1). The rankings are based on the judgment
of each indicator’s lead investigator and the project analysis
What does the indicator show? team as a whole. They are currently provisional. The rankings
Data for the 64 indicators range from full current coverage to may assume different meanings depending on the indicator in
one-time studies, to very anecdotal information. By looking at question. In particular, the appropriateness of proxy data is not
a cross section of the information in three broad categories, a fully reflected in the stoplight categorizations presented in the
brief overview of the situation for each criterion can be seen. following table.
Table 58-1. Data adequacy measures for all indicators (1 of 4).

KEY
Notes on the rating system: This rating provides a general overview of the data support-
Data Data Data Reporting
ing the indicators. Green means few gaps, yellow means several gaps, red means no data
coverage currentness frequency scale
or numerous gaps, and blue indicates data that has been modelled.
Data generally complete nationally, current, and relaible. National (90%+) 2000+ Annual to < Regional or
5-year periodic national
Data may not be consistent nationally, slightly dated, and not measured Regional or 1985-1999 5+ year periodic
frequently enough. some national
Data are from inconsistent sources or nonexistent, more than 15 years old or Varies or Incomplete One-time or
partial, and has no consistent plan for remeasurement incomplete incomplete
Data are modelled (currency and frequency dots refer to model baseline data) Modelled
=Triangle shows status of variable in 2003 report.

Data status Reporting
Criterion Old New Indicators
Coverage Current-ness Frequency Scale
1. Conservation of 1,3 1.01 Area and percent of forest by forest ecosystem type, Regional
biological diversity successional stage, age class, and forest ownership or tenure
2,4 1.02 Area and percent of forest in protected areas by forest Regional
ecosystem type, and by age class or successional stage
5 1.03 Fragmentation of forests Regional
6 1.04 Number of native forest-associated species Regional
7 1.05 Number and status of native forest-associated species at risk, Regional
as determined by legislation or scientific assessment
1.06 Status of onsite and offsite efforts focused on conservation of Regional
species diversity
8 1.07 Number and geographic distribution of forest-associated Regional
species at risk of losing genetic variation and locally adapted
genotypes
9 1.08 Population levels of selected representative forest-associated Regional
species to describe genetic diversity
1.09 Status of onsite and offsite efforts focused on conservation of National
genetic diversity
2. Maintenance 10 2.10 Area and percent of forest land and net area of forest land Regional
of productive available for wood production
capacity of forest
11 2.11 Total growing stock and annual increment of both Regional
ecosystems
merchantable and nonmerchantable tree species in forests
available for wood production
12 2.12 Area, percent, and growing stock of plantations of native and Regional
exotic species
13 2.13 Annual harvest of wood products by volume and as a Regional
percentage of net growth or sustained yield
14 2.14 Annual harvest of nonwood forest products Regional
3. Maintenance of 15 3.15 Area and percent of forest affected by biotic processes and Regional
ecosystem health agents (e.g., insects, disease, invasive alien species) beyond
and vitality reference conditions
16,17 3.16 Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents (e.g., fire, Regional
storm, land clearance) beyond reference conditions
4. Conservation and 18,19 4.17 Area and percent of forest whose designation or land Regional
maintenance of soil management focus is the protection of soil or water resources
and water resources
22 4.18 Proportion of forest management activities that meet best Regional
management practices or other relevant legislation to protect
soil resources
21,25 4.19 Area and percent of forest land with significant soil degradation Regional
20 4.20 Proportion of forest management activities that meet best Regional
management practices, or other relevant legislation, to protect
water-related resources
23,24 4.21 Area and percent of water bodies, or stream length, in forest Regional
areas with significant change in physical, chemical, or bio
logical properties from reference conditions
5. Maintenance of 26,27 5.22 Total forest ecosystem carbon pools and fluxes Regional
forest contribution
28 5.23 Total forest product carbon pools and fluxes National
to global carbon
cycles 5.24 Avoided fossil fuel carbon emissions by using forest biomass National
for energy
6. Maintenance and 29 6.25 Value and volume of wood and wood products production, Regional
enhancement of including primary and secondary processing
long-term multiple
30 6.26 Value of nonwood forest products produced or collected National
socioeconomic
benefits to meet the 43 6.27 Revenue from forest-based environmental services National
needs of societies
31 6.28 Total and per capita consumption of wood and wood products National
in roundwood equivalents
34 6.29 Total and per capita consumption of nonwood products National
32 6.30 Value and volume in roundwood equivalents of exports and National
imports of wood products
6.31 Value of exports and imports of nonwood products National
6.32 Exports as a share of wood and wood products production and National
imports as a share of wood and wood products consumption
33 6.33 Recovery or recycling of forest products as a percent of total Regional
forest products consumption.

Table 58-1. Data adequacy measures for all indicators (3 of4).
38 6.34 Value of capital investment and annual expenditure in forest Regional
management, wood and nonwood product industries, forest-
based environmental services, recreation, and tourism
39-41 6.35 Annual investment and expenditure in forest-related research, National
extension and development, and education
44 6.36 Employment in the forest products sector Regional
45 6.37 Average wage rates, annual average income, and annual injury Regional
rates in major forest employment categories
46 6.38 The resilience of forest-dependent communities National
47 6.39 Area and percent of forests used for subsistence purposes Regional
6.40 Distribution of revenues derived from forest management National
35-36 6.41 Area and percent of forests available and managed for public Regional
recreation and tourism
37 6.42 Number, type, and geographic distribution of visits attributed Regional
to recreation and tourism and related to facilities available
42 6.43 Area and percent of forests managed primarily to protect the Regional
range of cultural, social, and spiritual needs and values
6.44 The importance of forests to people National
7. Legal, institutional, Extent to which the legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) support the conservation and sustainable management of forests,
and economic including the extent to which it:
framework for
forest conservation 48 7.45 —Clarifies property rights, provides for appropriate land tenure National
and sustainable arrangements, recognizes customary and traditional rights of
management. indigenous people, and provides a means of resolving property
disputes by due process
49 7.46 —Provides for periodic forest-related planning, assessment, National
and policy review that recognizes the range of forest values,
including coordination with relevant sectors
50 7.47 —Provides opportunities for public participation in public National
policy and decisionmaking related to forests and public access
to information
51 7.48 —Encourages best practice codes for forest management National
52 7.49 —Provides for the management of forests to conserve special National
environmental, cultural, social, and scientific values
Extent to which the institutional framework supports the conservation and sustainable management of forests, including
53 7.50 —The capacity to provide for public involvement activities and National
public education, awareness, and extension programs, and
make available forest-related information
54 7.51 —The capacity to undertake and implement periodic forest- National
related planning, assessment, and policy review, including
cross-sectoral planning coordination
55 7.52 —The capacity to develop and maintain human resource skills National
across relevant disciplines
56 7.53 —The capacity to develop and maintain efficient physical National
infrastructure to facilitate the supply of forest products and
services and to support forest management
57 7.54 —The capacity to enforce laws, regulations, and guidelines National
Extent to which the economic framework (economic policies and measures) supports the conservation and sustainable management
of forests through investment and taxation policies and a regulatory environment that recognizes the long-term nature of investments
58 7.55 —And permits the flow of capital in and out of the forest sector National
in response to market signals, nonmarket economic valuations,
and public policy decisions to meet long-term demands for
forest products and services
59 7.56 —And permits nondiscriminatory trade policies for forest National
products
Capacity to measure and monitor changes in the conservation and sustainable management of forests, including
60 7.57 —Availability and extent of up-to-date data, statistics, and National
other information important to measuring or describing
indicators
61 7.58 —Scope, frequency, and statistical reliability of forest National
inventories, assessments, monitoring, and other relevant
information
62 7.59 —Compatibility with other countries in measuring, monitoring, National
and reporting on indicators member countries

Capacity to conduct and apply research and development aimed at improving forest management and delivery of forest goods and
services
63 7.60 —Including development of scientific understanding of forest National
ecosystem characteristics and functions
64 7.61 —And development of methodologies to measure and National
integrate environmental and social costs and benefits into
markets and public policies, and to reflect forest-related
resource depletion or replenishment in national accounting
systems
65 7.62 —And new technologies and the capacity to assess the National
socioeconomic consequences associated with the introduction
of new technologies
66 7.63 —And enhancement of ability to predict impacts of human National
intervention on forests
67 7.64 —And the ability to predict impacts on forests of possible National
climate change
Indicator 7.59. Capacity to measure and on indicator revisions and develop common data formats.
Each country may have laws and geophysical situations that
monitor changes in the conservation and are unique, but as much as possible, common data formats for
sustainable management of forests, includ- the indicators are adopted. Data compatibility is of course the
ing compatibility with other countries in responsibility of the Federal Government.
measuring, monitoring, and reporting on The participating countries in the Montréal Process use education,
indicators member countries technical assistance, research, and planning to seek common
data formats and reporting methods. State forestry agencies,
What is the indicator and why is it important? private sector forest products firms, and forest landowners
Consistent data among countries using the Montréal Process may contribute to these efforts by reporting data in the formats
will facilitate comparative monitoring of sustainable forest sought for the United States and Montréal Process reports.
management and trends over time. The member countries are:
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Republic What has changed since 2003?
of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, the Reporting protocols are harmonized, to the extent possible, by
United States, and Uruguay. Montréal Process technical advisory committees, but the capac-
ity of each country to collect and report all the data differs.
What does the indicator show? Data compatibility has improved in the 2010 report, but most
The United States works with other countries in the Montréal indicators are still not completely reported by any country, let
Process through Technical Advisory Committees to help agree alone in the exactly same metrics and format.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, R I
Informational/educationalb N, R, S E, T, R, A E, T, R, A R, A
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.60. Capacity to conduct and scientists and budgets of more than $500 million per year.
Observations suggest that these funds and personnel levels
apply research and development aimed at have declined in recent years, at least in terms of real funding
improving forest management and delivery after inflation, but current data are lacking. Other private sector
of forest goods and services, including research and development for forestry equipment for land
development of scientific understanding and harvesting operations also contributes significantly to the
total expenditures on forestry research, but this amount is not
of forest ecosystem characteristics and
known.
functions
The scientific understanding is developed and disseminated
What is the indicator and why is it important? through educational, technical assistance, research, and plan-
ning efforts. The private sector also participates in these efforts.
Research and development provide the scientific basis for
Forest certification standards, particularly in the Sustainable
adaptive management of the Nation’s forests. Science improves
Forestry Initiative, require demonstration of forest research.
our understanding of ecological, social, and economic pro-
cesses in forests, and is fundamental in ensuring that we can The National Research Council National Capacity in Forestry
meet social goals for those forests. This indicator is a measure Research report classified forestry research by MP C&I
of the capacity to understand forest ecosystems processes and criteria as well for all sectors as of 2001. The report found that
components. This understanding is essential to the conservation Biological Diversity (Criterion 1) and Productive Capacity
and sustainable management of forest ecosystems. (Criterion 2) had the largest share of the U.S. research effort, at
19 and 24 percent, respectively. Ecosystem Health (Criterion
What does the indicator show? 3, 16 percent), Socioeconomics (Criterion 6, 15 percent),
and Soil and Water (Criterion 4, 14 percent) were next. The
Federal, State, and university research and development efforts
Institutional Framework Criterion 7, 5 percent) and Carbon
are authorized by relevant government programs and laws,
Cycles (Criterion 5, 7 percent) had the smallest shares of the
which prescribe that research programs must provide scientific
U.S. research. The Forest Service had proportionately more
information for forest resource management and protection.
ecological research; academic institutions somewhat more
Development of research to improve scientific understanding
social and institutional research; and industry more productive
of forest ecosystem characteristics and functions is a blend of
capacity research.
national research and development performed by the Federal
Government, universities throughout the country, a few State
forestry and natural resource agencies, environmental non- What has changed since 2003?
governmental organizations, and the forest industry and forest Federal Forest Service forest resource funding has been stable
landowning firms. or declined somewhat in the past 6 years in real terms. A range
of Federal organizations and research disciplines continue to
According to the 2003 National Capacity in Forestry Research
examine forests in some fashion, however.
Report, as of 2002, the Forest Service research program had
723 scientist-years of personnel, with about 500 research The U.S. vertically integrated forest products sector has
scientists, and a budget of $241 million. As of 1993, U.S. declined in size from about 40 million acres in 1980 to about
universities had 1,459 full time employees, with about one-half 10 million acres in 2009, and its capacity in forest land
of those scientist years of effort being dedicated to research, management research decreased as well, because the major
and the rest to teaching and extension. Forest industry reported firms sold their lands and ceased research operations. Timber
$72 million in research funding through its Sustainable Forestry investment management organizations (TIMOs) and real estate
Initiative program efforts in 2001. investment trusts (REITs) have maintained modest research
programs and many are members of university cooperative
Other Federal agencies such as National Aeronautics and Space
research programs.
Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation, the
U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Agri- At least a few research branches of former forest products firms
culture probably spent $40 to $50 million on forest related have been spun off and started their own forestry research and
research in 2000. Environmental nongovernmental organizations development organizations in areas such as in biotechnology
(NGOs) also spent millions of dollars on forest related research and management information systems. Despite the shifts in land
and development. More recent data are lacking, but in total, the ownership, in 2008, Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)
direct forestry expenditures and effort exceed 1,000 research certified companies spent or contributed $89 million to forest

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N, R, S L, R, I, G
Informational/educationalb N, S E, T, R, A E, T, R, A T, R
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede R, N, L C M
a
b
c
d
e
research, which was slightly more than the amount reported national accounting systems in the United States and its forest
by large forest products firms as of 2001. Many environmental resources at this time. Many means exist, however, by which
NGOs also perform research and analysis efforts that contribute public policies consider environmental effects related to
scientific knowledge about to ecological, social, and economic Federal and State projects, and at times private land actions.
components of forest resources. These include the process-based National Environmental Policy
Act, which requires analysis of the impacts of major Federal
actions on the environment.
Indicator 7.61—Capacity to conduct and
The Endangered Species Act prescribes specific measures to
apply research and development aimed at protect threatened and endangered species and uses rigorous
improving forest management and delivery of means to list such species. The National Forest Management
forest goods and services and development Act Federal regulations include specific directions to provide
of methodologies to measure and integrate for ecosystem diversity through a combination of process
requirements and prescriptive guidance.
environmental and social costs and benefits
into markets and public policies, and to Research and planning are used as part of informational
and educational policy mechanisms to implement these
reflect forest-related resource depletion or
environmental and social components of national forest
replenishment in national accounting systems planning actions. Various incentives, subsidies, and taxes
also are provided for planning by States, and the protection of
What is the indicator and why is it important? endangered, threatened, or rare species and ecosystems. These
This indicator assesses the ability to fully account for the costs include specific Federal or State programs and private market
and benefits of public and private decisions on forest resources. actions in forest certification, wetlands banking, and cap-and-
Although information on traditional economic measures of for- trade systems for endangered species or carbon storage. These
est market values is usually available, information on social and and other ecosystem services are becoming a much greater
environmental values is incomplete. Lack of such information focus of both public and private forest management.
in national accounting frameworks can result in poor under-
standing of the relative value of all forest goods and services, What has changed since 2003?
including nonmarket and market values. Similarly, this lack of National efforts toward environmental accounting for a broad
information could lead to poor allocation of forest resources. range of goods and services, including forests, have been
Better national accounting practices can also help identify areas considered but not adopted, to date. Most forest products firms
where public intervention may improve market allocations. and organizations have also now adopted official sustainability
policies and are championing corporate social responsibility
What does the indicator show? (CSR) actions such as forest certification, ISO 14001 certifica-
No specifically required mechanisms exist to develop and tion, or CSR policies and statements to burnish their positive
incorporate environmental and social costs and benefits into environmental image and gain market recognition.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N L, R L, R
Informational/educationalb N, S R, A
Fiscal/economicd N, S I, S, T
Market basede N, L C, W, T, M
a
b
c
d
e
Indicator 7.62. Capacity to conduct and not mandatory or prescriptive in most cases. Federal research
was classed as prescriptive earlier, so it is included here for
apply research and development aimed at consistency. But the brunt of technology development and
improving forest management and devlivery assessment is derived from informational, educational, fiscal, or
of forest goods and services and new economic policy mechanisms.
technologies and the capacity to assess the Private enterprise interests drive much of the implementation
socioeconomic consequences associated of new technologies based on the research performed, as
with the introduction of new technologies described in Indicator 7.60. Implementation occurs through
voluntary adoption of promising technologies, supported by a
What is the indicator and why is it important? variety of government incentives, subsidies, and taxes. Most
of this technology adoption is market driven, based on public
Indicator 7.62 is a measure of the capacity to assess the effects
research that is disseminated through extension, education,
of new technologies in a broadly defined forest sector on
scientific publications, conferences, and technical meetings.
the socioeconomic structure in which the technologies are
applied (e.g., employment, industrial output, valued added,
or productivity in the forest sector). New technology drives
economic efficiency but has potential social and environmental Little direct evaluation of the socioeconomic consequences
consequences that should also be considered. of the introduction of new technologies exists, although some
socioeconomic studies and rural development analyses include
What does the indicator show? this as a component of their analyses. No notable changes have
occurred since 2003.
Development of new technologies for sustainable forest
management is largely a research and planning exercise, but is

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya N L
Informational/educationalb N, S R, A R, A
Fiscal/economicd N I, S, T
Market basede N M
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.63. Capacity to conduct and Assessments such as the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, the
Northern Forest Lands Assessment, or the Southern Forest
apply research and development aimed Resource Assessment make integrated analyses that occur
at improving forest management and periodically. The national Renewable Resources Planning Act
delivery of forest goods and services and assessments also contain estimates of the effects of human
enhancement of the ability to predict intervention on forests in general, although not couched in the
context of this indicator specifically.
impacts of human intervention on forests
Most of these analyses of the effects of human intervention on
What is the indicator and why is it important? forests, in response to normal forest management activities,
This indicator is a measure of the capacity to predict how occur as informational and educational policy mechanisms,
humans affect forests using a quantifiable, aggregate scale. This through research, professional education, and planning. The
understanding will help conservation and sustainable manage- private sector is becoming more involved in these analyses, at
ment of forest ecosystems. least in terms of risk analysis and for long range planning.
What does the indicator show? What has changed since 2003?
The ability of the United States to predict the effects of The U.S. forest sector has had periodic, comprehensive forest
human intervention on forests could be construed to mean the assessments at the regional and national levels. These assess-
assessment of the effects of research, development, and forest ments are apt to continue, in accordance with national laws and
management on forest extent, composition, functions, and mandates (such as the RPA and MP C&I reporting processes),
values. This subject is broad. and in the course of periodic regional initiatives (such as the
Southern Futures Study). These ongoing and periodic efforts
Analysis of the effects of human intervention on forests, at a involve incremental improvements in forest sector modeling
stand level or perhaps a landscape level, occurs routinely for techniques and public participation processes. Economic,
forest management actions and for research and demonstra- ecological, and social models have become more powerful and
tion. These assessments are occasionally accumulated into an pervasive, and stakeholder consultation has become the norm in
integrated database for monitoring or analysis of trends and for large scale forest planning and monitoring work.
regional policy deliberations and decisionmaking.

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Informational/educationalb N, S E, R, A E, R, A
Discretionary/voluntaryc S
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede M
a
b
c
d
e

Indicator 7.64. Capacity to conduct and management activities occur as informational and educational
policy mechanisms, through research, professional education,
apply research and development aimed at and planning. The analysis explores both the opportunities for
improving forest management and delivery forests to mitigate climate change through management actions
of forest goods and services and the ability to increase carbon storage, and management techniques that
to predict impacts on forests of possible forests might need to respond to the impacts of climate change.
climate change The private sector is becoming actively involved in these
analyses in terms of risk analysis for management impacts, for
What is the indicator and why is it important? opportunities to develop income streams through carbon stor-
Climate change may affect forest distribution, extent, age, and for long range planning. Insurance firms are becoming
pathogens, and productivity. Capacity is needed to quantify involved in quantitatively estimating climate change impacts,
the effects of climate change on forest productivity, plant and as are agricultural and forest production firms, such as equip-
animal species range shifts, carbon sequestration, water yield, ment manufacturers and herbicide and pesticide manufacturers.
forest health, and changes in stand structure––as is the ability to
integrate effects across atmospheric, ecological, and economic What has changed since 2003?
systems. Improved understanding of climate change effects Research about the ability of forests to adapt to climate change
will increase the capability to make better informed and earlier and to contribute to amelioration of climate change has oc-
climate change mitigating actions, thus, improving the likeli- curred for nearly two decades. An emerging consensus among
hood that forests will be managed on a sustainable basis. experts is that climate change is certain, that the loss of forests
contributes to the severity of climate change effects, and that
What does the indicator show? sustainable forest management can help reduce these effects by
In addition to the moderate research on assessing the effects reducing forest loss and fostering resilient forest ecosystems
of traditional forest management practices on forest health, while storing additional carbon. This premise was explicitly
the United States is now devoting a considerable amount of recognized in the 2007 Framework Convention on Climate
scientific resources to analyze the effects of global climate Change, in Bali, Indonesia. The contribution of Reducing
change on forests, at an aggregate national and regional scale. Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)
The analysis uses likely climate change scenarios to predict explicitly identified a role for forestry policy in developing,
the biological effects on forest distribution and growth and on and developed countries. These international accords will call
pathogens, economic conditions, and possible policy responses. for the scientific improvements that are needed to achieve the
The analysis also uses several components of the MP C&I. goals of REDD and afforestation, through improved scientific
methods, better forest management choices, and more effective
Most of these analyses of the effects of human intervention extension and implementation of techniques.
on forests in response to climate change or normal forest

Scale: Approach
National (N),
Prescriptive
Local (L)
Informational/educationalb N, R, S R, E
Fiscal/economicd S
Market basede M
a
b
c
d
e

Appendixes
References
Allen, C.D.; Macalady, A.K.; Chenchouni, H. et al. 2010. Driscoll, C.T.; Lawrence, G.B.; Bulger, A.J. et al. 2001. Acid
A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality rain revisited: Advances in scientific understanding since the
reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest passage of the 1970 and 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
Ecology and Management. 259: 660–684. Science Links Publication™, Vol. 1, no. 1. Hanover,
NH: Hubbard Brook Research Foundation. http://www.
Bentz, B.J.; Regniere, J.; Fettig, C.J. et al. 2010. Climate
hubbardbrook.org/6-12_education/Glossary/AcidRain.pdf.
change and bark beetles of the Western United States and
[Accessed June 20, 2011.]
Canada: direct and indirect effects. Bioscience. 60(8): 602–613.
Botkin, D.B. 1979. A grandfather clock down the staircase: Elliot, J.; Hall, D.E.; Scheele, D.L. 2000. Disturbed WEPP:
stability and disturbance in natural ecosystems. In: Proceedings, WEPP interface for disturbed forest and range runoff, erosion,
Forests: fresh perspectives from ecosystem analysis. Corvallis, and sediment delivery. Technical documentation. http://forest.
OR: Oregon State University Press: 1–10. moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html. [Accessed
June 20, 2011.]
Brooks, D.J.; Grant, G.E. 1992. New perspectives in forest
management: background, science issues, and research agenda. Ellefson, P.V.; Hibbard, C.M.; Kilgore, M.A.; Granskog, J.E.
Res. Pap. PNW-RP-456. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 2005. Legal, institutional, and economic indicators of forest
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Station. 17 p. conservation and sustainable forest management: review of
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/20571. [Accessed March 3, information available for the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep.
2011]. SRS-GTR-82. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 221 p.
Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States,
2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-GTR-27. Newtown Square, PA: Esty, D.C.; Levy, M.; Srebotnjak, T.; de Sherbinin, A. 2005.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 2005 environmental sustainability index: benchmarking
Research Station. 72 p. national environmental stewardship. New Haven, CT: Yale
Center for Environmental Law & Policy. 403 p.
Cashore, B.; Auld, G.; Newsom, D. 2004. Governing through
markets: forest certification and the emergence of non-State Fedkiw, J.; Rose, G.A. 2008. Stewardship and landscape
authority. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 327 p. coordination for sustainable forests. Washington, DC: The
Pinchot Institute for Conservation.
Cashore, B.; McDermott, C.L. 2004. Global environmental
forest policy: Canada as a constant case comparison of Gedalof, Z.; Berg, A.A. 2010. Tree ring evidence for limited
select forest practice regulations. Victoria, British Columbia: direct CO2 fertilization of forests over the 20th century. Global
International Forest Resources. Biogeochemical Cycles. 24: GB3027.
Clutter, M.; Mendell, B.; Newman, D. et al. 2005. Strategic Gunningham, N.; Grabosky, P.; Sinclair, D. 1998. Smart
factors driving timberland ownership changes in the U.S. regulation: designing environmental policy. New York:
South. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Clarendon Press. 520 p.
Service, Southern Research Station. 15 p.
Gustafson, E.J.; Lytle, D.E.; Swaty, R.; Loehle, C.
Cordell, H.K. 2008. The latest on trends in nature-based 2007. Simulating the cumulative effects of multiple forest
outdoor recreation. Forest History Today. Spring 2008: 4–10. management strategies on landscape measures of forest
Cordell, H.K. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American life. sustainability. Landscape Ecology. 22: 141–156.
Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing. 449 p.
H. John Heinz III Center for Science. 2008a. The state of the
Cubbage, F.; Harou, P.; Sills, E. 2007. Policy instruments to Nation’s ecosystems 2008: measuring the land, waters, and
enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and living resources of the United States. Washington, DC: Island
Economics. 9: 833–851. Press. 368 p.
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 R–1

H. John Heinz III Center for Science. 2008b. Environmental Ram, O.; Ellsworth, D.S.; Johnsen, K.H. et al. 2001. Soil
information: a road map to the future. Washington, DC: H. fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a
John Heinz III Center for Science. 18 p. CO2-enriched atmosphere. Nature. 411: 469–472.
Magis, K. 2004. Community resilience: an indicator of social Roosevelt, T.R. 1910. The new nationalism. Whitefish, MT:
sustainability. Society and Natural Resources. 23: 401–416. Kessinger Publishing. 52 p. Also engraved on the wall of the
Cox Gallery in the U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2010. Massa-
chusetts biomass sustainability and carbon policy study: report Sample, V.A.; Kavanaugh, S.L.; Snieckus, M.M., eds. 2006.
to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Energy Advancing sustainable forest management in the United States.
Resources. In: Walker, T., ed. Natural capital initiative report. Washington, DC: The Pinchot Institute for Conservation.
NCI-2010-03. Brunswick, ME: Manomet Center for Conserva- [Irregular pagination]. http://www.pinchot.org/pubs/239.
tion Sciences: 182 p. [Accessed March 3, 2011].
McGinley, K.; Cubbage, F. 2008. Policies for sustainable Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. 2009.
forest management in the tropics: governmental and nongov- An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies.
ernmental policy outputs, execution, and uptake in Costa Rica, Ecological Indicators. 9: 189–212.
Guatemala, and Nicaragua. Paper presented at the XIII World
Stein, S.M.; Alig, R.J.; White, E.M. et al. 2007. National
Forestry Congress. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18–23 October
forests on the edge: development pressures on America’s
2009. http://www.cfm2009.org/es/programapost/resumenes/
national forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-
uploads/Governmental_and_Non_Governmental_fd.pdf.
GTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
[Accessed March 3, 2011].
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Station. 26 p. http://www.
Miller, D.A.; Wigley, T.B.; Miller, K.V. 2009. Managed forests treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/28858. [Accessed March 3, 2011].
and conservation of terrestrial biodiversity in the Southern
Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Mahal, L.G. et al. 2009.
United States. Journal of Forestry. 107(4): 197–203.
Private forests, public benefits: increased housing density
Montréal Process Working Group. 2009. Criteria and and other pressures on private forest contributions. Gen.
indicators for the conservation and sustainable management Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-795. Portland, OR: U.S. Department
of temperate and boreal forests. Tokyo, Japan: The Montréal of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Process Liaison Office. 48 p. http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/ Station. 74 p.
mpci/2009p_4.pdf. [Accessed March 3, 2011].
Sterner, T. 2003. Policy instruments for environmental and
National Academy of Public Administration. 2007. A green natural resource management. Washington, DC: Resources for
compass: institutional options for developing a national system the Future. 426 p.
of environmental indicators. http://www.napawash.org/.
Theobald, D.M. 2005. Landscape patterns of exurban growth
[Accessed March 3, 2011].
in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society. 10(1): 32.
New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service.
Development Division of Forests and Lands. 2006. New
2004. National report on sustainable forests, 2003. FS-766.
Hampshire statewide forest resources assessment—2010:
Washington, DC: U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest
important data and information about New Hampshire’s forests.
Service, Washington Office. 139 p.
http://www.nhdfl.org/library/pdf/Planning/NH%2Statewide%
20Assessment%202010%20update.pdf. [Accessed March 3, USDA Forest Service. 2009. Forest resources of the United
2011]. States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-78. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington
Oliver, C.D.; Larson, B.C. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. New
Office. 336 p.
York: John Wiley & Sons. 544 p.
Vilsack, T. 2009. A national vision for America’s forests.
Powers, R.F.; Sanchez, F.G.; Scott, D.A. et al. 2010. The
Transcript of speech in Seattle, WA. No. 0382.09. http://www.
North American long-term soil productivity experiment:
usda.gov/2009/08/0382.xml. [Accessed March 3, 2011].
Findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and
Management. 220: 31–50. Wilbanks, T.J.; Kates, R.W. 1999. Global change in local
places: how scale matters. Climate Change. 43: 601–628.
R–2 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

Glossary
Note: Source references, in brackets, are located at the end of the glossary.
abiotic [12] biotic [12]

Pertaining to the nonliving parts of an ecosystem, such as soil Pertaining to living organisms and their ecological and physi-
particles, bedrock, air, and water. ological relations.
age-class [11] broadleaf (synonym: hardwood or deciduous species) [11]

A category into which the average age or age range of trees or A dicotyledonous tree, usually broad-leaved and deciduous.
other vegetation is divided for classification or use. Age-class is
usually used in reference to even-aged stands of trees. It repre- carbon absorption [6]
sents the dominant age of the main body of trees in a stand. In The incorporation of the element carbon from the atmosphere
some mixed-aged stands, age-class can be used to describe the into plant tissue.
age of the dominant/codominant cohort of canopy trees.
carbon budget [6]
air pollutants [16] The inventory of the element carbon in carbon pools and the
Gases, particles, or aerosols generated from management or balance of exchange between the pools in the area of study.
combustion activities (industry, transportation, agriculture,
carbon cycle [15]
management, etc.) that are released into the atmosphere,
The sequence of transformations whereby carbon dioxide is
transported, and deposited in human and natural ecosystems.
fixed as carbon or carbon compounds in living organisms by
Air pollutants may be absorbed by forest ecosystems without
photosynthesis or chemosynthesis, liberated by respiration
effects (sink) or exceed the absorption capacity and have a
and/or death and decomposition of the fixing organism, used
deleterious effect on processes or components.
by heterotrophic species, and ultimately returned to its original
best management practice(s) (BMP) [12] state to be used again.
A practice or usually a combination of practices that are
carbon emission [6]
determined by a state or designated planning agency to be the
The emanation of the element carbon from organic matter into
most effective and practicable means (including technological,
the atmosphere.
economic, and institutional considerations) of controlling
point and nonpoint source pollution at levels compatible with
carbon flux [24]
environmental goals.
The transfer (net flow) of carbon from one carbon pool (stock)
to another. For example, for the atmosphere, common fluxes
biological diversity [1]
include carbon removed by plant growth and dissolved into the
The variability among living organisms from all sources,
ocean and carbon added by mineralization, plant respiration,
including inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic
fossil-fuel burning, and volcanic activity.
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are
part; this includes diversity within species, between species,
carbon pool (or stock) [7]
and of ecosystems.
The absolute quantity of carbon held within a pool at a specific
time. Examples of carbon pools are aboveground forest
biomass (woody) [17]
biomass, soil, wood products, and the atmosphere.
The mass of the woody parts (wood, bark, branches, twigs,
stumps, and roots) of trees (alive and dead) and shrubs and
climate change [3]
bushes, measured to a specified minimum diameter at breast
The actual or theoretical changes in global climate systems
height (d.b.h.). Includes above-stump woody biomass, stumps,
occurring in response to physical or chemical feedback,
and roots. Excludes foliage.
resulting from human or naturally induced changes in planetary
terrestrial, atmospheric, and aquatic ecosystems.
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 G–1

conifer (synonym: softwood, evergreen, or needleleaf ecosystem diversity [11]
species) [11] Describes the variety of different ecosystems found in a region.
A coniferous tree, usually evergreen, having needles or scale- A categorization of the combination of animals, plants, and
like leaves. micro-organisms, and the physical environment with which
they are associated is the basis for recognizing ecosystems.
criterion [11]
A category of conditions or processes by which sustainable for- ecosystem services [25]
est management may be assessed. A criterion is characterized The conditions and processes through which natural ecosys-
by a set of related indicators that are monitored periodically to tems, and the species, which make them up, sustain and fulfill
assess change. human life. They maintain biodiversity and the production of
ecosystem goods, such as seafood, forage, timber, biomass
cultural value [22] fuels, natural fiber, and many pharmaceuticals, industrial
See social or cultural needs and values. products, and their precursors. In addition to the production of
goods, ecosystem services are the actual life-support functions,
damage to forest [17] such as cleansing, recycling, and renewal, and they confer
Disturbance to the forest that may be caused by biotic or many intangible aesthetic and cultural benefits as well.
abiotic agents, resulting in death or a significant loss of vitality,
productivity, or value of trees and other components of the endangered species [8]
forest ecosystem. A noncritically endangered taxon that is facing a high risk of
extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of
diminished biological components [11] the criteria A to E of IUCN (1998).
A reduction in the diversity of biological species. An ecosystem
is considered to have both biotic and abiotic elements. Many erosion (soil) [11]
species of microflora or insects are important to soil building, The movement of soil materials from one place to another.
plant reproduction, or nutrient cycling. The biotic elements are The movement of soil due to natural processes should be
dynamic in occurrence and will change in response to natural distinguished from that related to forest harvesting, road
vegetation succession or artificially induced changes. The construction, or other human alterations.
concept of diminished biological components reflects reduc-
tions or shifts in biological processes in a given forest relative ex situ [12]
to what might be expected, based on an undisturbed, similar Off the site; away from the natural habitat.
reference site.
exotic species (synonym: nonindigenous species) [11]
direct employment [11] Any species growing or living outside its natural range of
The number of jobs created by public and private firms in occurrence. Normally this refers to species purposely or
the process of producing a good or service. In the process of accidentally introduced into countries or regions where they do
producing the good or service, however, the primary firm also not historically occur.
generates secondary economic activity in other sectors of the
economy. The jobs created by this secondary economic activity extinct species [8]
are referred to as indirect employment. A species for which there is no reasonable doubt that the last
individual has died or when exhaustive surveys in known or
ecological processes [16] expected habitat throughout its historic range have failed to
Natural activities fundamental to the functioning of a healthy record an individual.
and sustainable ecosystem, usually involving the transfer of
energy and substances from one medium or trophic level to forest available for timber production [14]
another. Forest land that is producing or is capable of producing
industrial wood and is not withdrawn from timber utilization
ecosystem [11] by statute, administrative regulation, or formal conservation
A dynamic complex of living organisms (plant, animal, fungal, reserve purposes. Includes forest with conditions suitable for
and micro-organism communities) and the associated nonliving timber production even if so situated as to not be immediately
environment with which they interact. accessible for logging.
G–2 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

forest ecosystem [2] forest type [11]
A dynamic complex of plant, animal, and micro-organism A category of forest defined by its vegetation, particularly
communities, and their abiotic environment interacting as composition, and/or locality, as categorized by each country in
a functional unit, where the presence of trees is essential. a system suitable to its situation. The broadest general groups
Humans, with their cultural, economic, and environmental are—
needs are an integral part of many forest ecosystems. • Broad-leaved (hardwoods).
forest goods • Coniferous (softwoods).

Things from the forest that are useful and beneficial, and that • Mixed broad-leaved and coniferous.
have intrinsic value or economic utility. Includes all flora and
fauna, minerals, and water resources occurring or originating in forest-associated species (flora and fauna) [23]
the forest. A species with a measureable dependence on a forest ecosystem(s)
for any aspect of its life history, including indirect dependence
forest land [4] (e.g., consuming forest-based or derived resources).
Land with at least 10 percent tree crown cover (or equivalent
stocking) and more than 0.5 ha (1 ac) in area, including land fragmentation [11]
that formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or Describes one aspect of habitat capacity. Refers generally to the
artificially regenerated. The trees should generally be able to reduction in size of forest patches with coincident decreases in
reach a minimum height of 5 m (16.5 ft) at maturity in situ. forest connectivity and increases in patch isolation and amount
May consist either of closed forest formations in which trees of forest edge. The fragmentation of a forest into small pieces
of various stories and undergrowth cover a high proportion may disrupt ecological processes and reduce the availability of
of the ground; or of open forest formations with a continuous habitat.
vegetation cover in which tree crown cover exceeds the
minimum percent. Young natural stands and all plantations genetic diversity [11]
established for forestry purposes, which have yet to reach the Describes the variation of genetic characteristics found within a
minimum crown density or tree height, are included under species and among different species.
forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forest area that
goods and services [12]
is temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention or
The various outputs and benefits, including onsite uses,
natural causes, but which are expected to revert to forest.
produced from forest and rangeland resources.
forest management plan (or equivalent) [11]
gross domestic product (GDP) [19]
A written scheme of forest management, aiming at defined
A measure of country output composed of the market value of
management goals, which is periodically revised. These
the goods and services produced by labor and property located
include—
in the country. Because the labor and property are located in
forest management plans the country, the suppliers (that is workers and, for property,
Information (in the form of text, maps, tables, and graphs) the owners) may be either country residents or residents of the
collected during (periodic) forest inventories at operational rest of the world. Gross product, or gross product originating
forest units level (stands, compartments), and operations (GPO), by industry is the contribution of each private industry
planned for individual stands or compartments to reach the and of government to the nation’s output, or gross domestic
management goals. product (GDP). An industry’s GPO, often referred to as its
“value added,” is equal to its gross output (sales or receipts
equivalents
and other operating income, commodity taxes, and inventory
Information collected on forest area, at forest management
change) minus its intermediate inputs (consumption of goods
or aggregated forest management unit level (forest blocks,
and services purchased from other industries or imported). The
farms, enterprises, watersheds, municipalities, or wider
industrial origin of value added is determined by the Interna-
units), and strategies/management activities planned to
tional Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC), rev. 2.
reach the management or development goals.
forest soil [9]

Soil with characteristics resulting from, or emphasized by, tree
cover. (See soil.)

growing stock [4] exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of
The living tree component of the standing volume on forest designation of the area; and (c) provide a foundation for
land consisting of the central stem volume of trees of at spiritual, educational, recreational, and visitor opportuni-
least 12.5 cm (5 in) d.b.h. measured from 0.3 m (1 ft) above ties, all of which must be environmentally and culturally
the ground to a top diameter of 10 cm (4 in). Volume is net comparable.
underbark.
Category III: An area of land and/or sea containing one or
growth, net annual (synonym: net annual increment) [4] more specific natural or natural/cultural features which are
Average annual volume over a given reference period of gross of outstanding or unique value because of their inherent
increment minus natural losses of all trees of at least 12.5 cm rarity, representative or esthetic qualities, or cultural
(5 in) d.b.h. significance.
Category IV: An area of land and/or sea subject to active

habitat [3]
intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the
The natural environment of a living organism, primarily deter-
maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of
mined by vegetation, climate, soils, geology, and topography.
specific species.
in situ [12] Category V: An area of land with coast and sea as appro-
On site; within the natural habitat. priate, where the interaction of people and nature over time
has produced an area of distinct character with significant
indicator [11] esthetic, ecological, and/or cultural value, and often with
A measure (measurement) of an aspect of a criterion. A quanti- high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this
tative or qualitative variable that can be measured or described traditional interaction is vital to the protection, mainte-
and that, when observed periodically, demonstrates trends. nance, and evolution of such an area.
indigenous people [11] Category VI: An area of land and/or sea containing predo-
People descended from the first inhabitants of a nation or minantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure
subnational region. long-term protection and maintenance of biological diversity,
while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of
indirect employment [11] natural products and services to meet community needs.
The result of two types of economic transactions. First, jobs
are created in secondary firms that provide materials, supplies, land area [20]
goods, and services to the primary firm. Second, employees An area of dry land and land temporarily or partly covered by
of primary firms spend their wages and salaries in the local water, such as marshes, swamps, and river food plains; streams,
economy, which generates activities in the local retail and sloughs, estuaries, and canals less than 60 m (200 ft) wide; and
service sectors. lakes, reservoirs, and ponds less than 1.8 ha (4.5 ac) in area.
IUCN classification system [8] long term [21]

The World Conservation Union (formerly the International Occurring over or involving a relatively long period of time. In
Union of Conservation Networks) protected area classifications natural resources, generally periods of 50 years or more.
(IUCN categories):
merchantable [11]
Category I: An area of land and/or sea possessing some Trees of a size, quality, and condition suitable for marketing
outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or under given economic conditions, even if so situated as to not
physiological features and/or species, available primarily be immediately accessible for utilization.
for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring or
a large area of unmodified or slightly modified land, and/or monitoring [11]
sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without The periodic and systematic measurement and assessment of
permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and change of an indicator.
managed so as to preserve its natural condition.
mortality, annual [14]
Category II: A natural area of land and/or sea, designated
The average annual volume of sound wood in trees that dies
to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more
from natural causes during a specified year or on average
ecosystems for present and future generations; (b) exclude
during the period between inventories.

native species (synonyms: indigenous species, persistent toxic substance
autochthonous species) [3] A relatively nondegrading pollutant that after discharge
Usually, a species known to have existed on a site before the becomes a long-term component of soils, aquatic systems,
influence of humans. It depends on the temporal and spatial and other materials. Upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or
context of analysis, since long-established exotic species are assimilation into any organism, the substance can cause death
often considered to be native by default. or disease, mutations, deformities, or malfunctions in such
organisms or their offspring.
net growth [14]
The average annual net increase in the volume of trees during plantation [14]
the period between inventories. Components include the vol- Forest stands consisting almost exclusively of planted trees of
ume increment of trees at the beginning of the reference period native or exotic species, and managed to generally maintain this
surviving to its end, plus the net volume of trees reaching the composition at maturity. Management practices may include
minimum size class during the period, minus the volume of extensive site preparation before planting and suppression of
trees that died during the period and minus the volume of trees competing vegetation. Forests that fall outside this classifica-
that became cull. tion are not necessarily natural forests.
new and improved technologies population [4]

Changes to technology that might improve the efficiency and/or 1. The number of organisms of the same species inhabiting the
effectiveness of management actions. The definition is deliber- same area that potentially interbreed and share a common
ately broad to allow for changes relating to industrial methods gene pool.
and values as well as to nonwood and nonextractive activities
2. The total number of organisms over a large cluster of areas,
in the tourism, recreation, and indigenous food sectors.
such as a physiographic region or a nation.
nonconsumptive forest use [11]
productive capacity [16]
Forest use that does not lead to the physical extraction of
A classification of forest land in terms of potential annual
products from the forests. Such use might include recreation,
cubic-measured volume growth of trees per unit area at
photography, birdwatching, education, and contemplation or
culmination of mean annual increment in fully stocked forest
meditation.
stands.
nonmarket valuation [13]
protected area [1]
Valuation of goods and services not allocated through tradi-
A geographically defined area that is designated or regulated
tional markets.
and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives such
nonmerchantable [11] as—
A species that has no known commercial uses for wood 1. Strict nature reserves and wilderness areas.
products. Merchantability is usually judged according to the 2. National parks.
suitability of a species for pulp, paper, lumber, or specialty
3. Natural monuments.
wood products. Both native and exotic tree species can be
considered merchantable tree species. 4. Habitat and species management areas.
5. Protected landscape and seascape.
nonwood forest products (synonym: nonwood products) [4]
6. Managed resource areas.
Products for human consumption: food, beverages, medicinal
plants, and extracts (e.g., fruits, berries, nuts, honey, game (See IUCN classification system.)
meats, mushrooms). Fodder and forage (grazing, range). Other
nonwood products (e.g., cork, resin, tannins, industrial extracts, protective function [16]
wool and skins, hunting trophies, Christmas trees, decorative An attribute of a policy or management decision that serves to
foliage, mosses and ferns, essential and cosmetic oils). preserve the essential components or processes of ecosystems,
or specific components of an ecosystem, to maintain a desired
quality and quantity of a resource commodity.
rare species [5]

A species regarded as having low abundance and/or small
range.

recycling [13] soil chemical properties [13]
Wood fiber or other wood components in any form that are The elemental and structural composition of the soil, modified
processed after initial use to regain material for human use. by climate, weather, plants, soil insects, and microbes. They
directly affect cycling of nutrients and toxic compounds, and
reference condition (synonym: baseline condition) [26] are the basis for a healthy and sustainable forest ecosystem.
Any datum against which change is measured. It might be
a “current baseline,” in which case it represents observable, soil degradation [28]
present-day conditions. It might also be a “future baseline,” Negative process often accelerated by human activities
which is a projected future set of conditions excluding the (improper soil use and cultivation practices, building areas)
driving factor of interest. Alternative interpretations of the that leads to deterioration of soil properties and functions
reference conditions can give rise to multiple baselines. or destruction of soil as a whole (e.g., compaction, erosion,
salinization, and acidification).
removals, annual [14]
The net volume of trees, live or dead, of a specified minimum soil erosion [11]
diameter (generally the same as for growing stock) removed The movement of soil materials from one place to another.
from the forest during a specified year, or average for a The movement of soil due to natural processes should be
reference period, by harvesting or cultural operation such as distinguished from that related to forest harvesting, road
thinning or stand improvement, or by land clearing. Includes construction, or other human alterations. Note: Significant
the volume of trees or parts of trees that are part of a harvest erosion needs to be defined by each country and with respect to
operation but are not removed from the forest. variation between different landscapes and soils.
representative species [11] soil organic matter (SOM) [15]

Species with habitat dependencies typical of a group of similar The organic fraction of the soil that includes plant and animal
species and which are likely to respond to changes in avail- residues at various stages of decomposition, cells and tissues of
ability of those habitats or resources. Examples include species soil organisms, and substances synthesized by the soil popula-
dependent on mature forests, air quality sensitive species, tion; commonly determined as the amount of organic material
wetland dependent species, hollow-tree dependent species, in a soil sample passed through a 2-mm sieve.
and thermo-regulation dependent species. Selected species are
relatively easy to identify and monitor. small portion (regarding species range) [11]
Dependent on the initial (original or some level agreed as
resilience [27] baseline) distribution of the species. Species with very limited
The capacity of a system, community, or society potentially natural ranges (which suggests they are a relict population or
exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order have very specific habitat requirements) cannot tolerate the
to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and percentage reduction in habitat that a widely distributed species
structure. can. Small might, therefore, be defined for relict populations as
the majority of existing range or, for species with large popula-
sedimentation [3] tions and wide distribution, a lower percentage of the historical
The deposition of eroded soil materials suspended in the population distribution.
water of creeks, lakes, or other water bodies. Sedimentation
takes place when water velocity falls below a point at which species at risk [18]
suspended particles can be carried. Federally listed endangered, threatened, candidate, and
proposed taxon and other taxon for which loss of viability,
social or cultural needs and values [22] including reduction in distribution or abundance, where
A wide range of benefits from forests and other forms of nature survival is a concern.
perceived as required (needed) by, or of worth (of value) to,
a society or a cultural segment of society to sustain lifestyles, species diversity [11]
tradition, history, health, and community. The number and variety of species in a given area.
soil [15] spiritual needs and values [22]

The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the Relationships perceived as required (needed) or of worth for
immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium sustaining feelings of respect, reverence, connectivity, and
for the growth of land plants. stewardship with forests and other forms of nature.

stream flow [16] 1. Conservation of biological diversity.
The quantity of water in a watershed based on precipitation 2. Maintenance of productive capacity.
quantity and the ability of the watershed to store and slowly
3. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health.
release water. Typically characterized by seasonal periods of
high or low water flow. Changes in high or low flow patterns 4. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources.
are indicative of changes in precipitation patterns and changes 5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles.
in the integrity of watersheds that affect its ability to absorb and 6. Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple
regulate water flow patterns. socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of society.
stream timing [16] 7. Legal, institutional, and economic frameworks for forest
The seasonal patterns of high and low water flows based on conservation.
precipitation patterns. Changes in timing of stream flows are
tenure [12]
indicative of changes in precipitation patterns or watershed
integrity. The act of owning, using, and controlling land under certain
terms and conditions.
subsistence [11]
threatened species [3]
The harvesting or growing of products directly for personal
or family livelihood. Subsistence needs generally include Plant or animal species likely to become endangered
foodstuffs, fuel wood, clothing, and shelter. Subsistence goods throughout all or a significant portion of their range within the
can be considered any goods that are substitutes for a market foreseeable future.
good.
value added [19]
successional stage [11]
See gross domestic product.
A characteristic of many ecosystems that experience a change
vulnerable species [8]
in structure and/or species on a given site in relation to time
A taxon that because it is very rare and distributed only locally
since a major disturbance. Where they occur, seral stages
throughout its range, or because it has a restricted range (even
include early successional vegetation through to later succes-
if abundant at some locations) is considered to be facing a high
sional stages. In many cases, the successional stages reflect a
risk of extinction in the wild.
shift from the dominance of shade-intolerant species to that of
shade-tolerant species. wood consumption [13]
The amount of roundwood provided from domestic sources and
sustainable forest management
other countries needed to make wood and paper products for
The stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in such a
domestic consumption.
way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productiv-
ity, regeneration capacity, and vitality, and forest’s potential wood products [14]
to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic, Logs, bolts, and other round timber generated from harvesting
and social functions at local, national, and global levels, and trees for industrial or consumer use. Includes wood chips
not cause damage to other ecosystems. generated from round timber for industrial use.
The criteria and indicators are intended to provide a common
wood supply [13]
understanding of what is meant by sustainable forest manage-
The amount of roundwood provided from domestic sources to
ment. They provide a framework for describing, assessing, and
meet domestic consumption needs.
evaluating a country’s progress toward sustainability at the
national level and include measures of—

References [13] Skog, K. 2002. Personal communication. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.
[1] Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 1992. United Madison, WI.
Nations. 28p.
[14] Smith, W.B.; Vissage, J.S.; Darr, D.R.; Sheffield, R.M.
[2] CBD. 2009. Connecting biodiversity and climate change 2001. Forest statistics of the United States, 1997. Gen.
mitigation and adaptation: report of the second ad hoc Tech. Rep. NC-GTR-219. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department
technical expert group on biodiversity and climate change. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 191 p.
CBD Technical Series No. 411. 126 p.
[15] Soil Conservation Society of America. 1982. Resource
[3] Dunster, J.; Dunster, K. 1996. Dictionary of natural conservation glossary. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Soil
resource management. Vancouver, British Columbia, Conservation Society of America. 193 p.
Canada: UBC Press. 363 p.
[16] Stolte, K.W. 1997. 1996 National technical report of
[4] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United forest health. Admin. Rep. FS-AR-605. Asheville, NC:
Nations. 2010. Global forest resources assessment 2010: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
main report. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Rome, Italy. 340 p. Research Station. 47 p.
[5] Gaston, K.J. 1994. Rarity. Population and Community [17] Temperate and Boreal Forest Resource Assessment.
Biology Series 13. New York: Chapman and Hall. 205 p. 2000. Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America,
[6] Heath, L. 2002. USDA Forest Service, Global Climate Australia, Japan and New Zealand, 2000. Geneva Timber
Change Program. Personal communication. and Forest Study Papers, No. 17, Main Report. Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations, Economic Commission for
[7] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Europe. 445 p.
Nations. 2001. IPCC special report on land use, land-use
change and forestry. http://www.grida.no/publications/ [18] U.S. Congress, Federal Register. 2002. Forest Service
other/ipcc_sr/?src=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/. Planning Rule: Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday,
(February 2011). December 6, 2002 / Proposed Rules. 72770–72816.
[8] IUCN, World Conservation Monitoring Center. 1998. [19] U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
In: Walter, K.S.; Gillett, H.J., eds. 1997 IUCN red list of Analysis. http://www.bea.gov/. (February 2011).
threatened plants. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, [20] U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
United Kingdom. lxiv + 862 p. 2010. Statistical abstract of the United States, 2011. 2010.
[9] International Union of Forestry Research Organizations. Commerce Department, Census Bureau. 1,028 p.; ill.
2000. Silvaterm database. Vienna, Austria: http://iufro. [21] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Ed.
boku.ac.at/iufro/silvavoc/svdatabase.htm. (February 2011). 2003. G.&C. Merriam Co. 1,664 p.
[10] Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in [22] Cordell, K. 2002.
Personal communication. U.S. Depart-
Europe: Forests Europe. 2011. http://www.foresteurope. ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research
org/eng/Press/Glossary/Glossary/. (February 2011). Station. Athens, GA.
[11] Montréal Process. 2009. Montréal Process Criteria and [23] Canadian Forest Service. 1992. Silvicultural terms in
Indicators for the conservation and sustainable manage- Canada, 2nd ed. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Forest Service.
ment of temperate and boreal forests: technical notes 114 p.
on implementation of the Montréal Process Criteria and
Indicators. Third ed. Tokyo, Japan: Montreal Liaison Unit [24] Natural Resources Canada Definitions. 2010. http://www.
100 p. carbon.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/definitions_e.html. (February 2011).
[12] Society of American Foresters. 1998. The dictionary [25] Daily, G.C. 1997. Introduction: What are ecosystem
of forestry. Helms, J.A., ed. Washington, DC: Society of services? In: Daily, G.C., ed. Natures services: societal
American Foresters. 210 p. dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC:
Island Press. 1–10.

[26] IPCC TAR. 2001. Climate change 2001: impacts, adapta- [28] European Commission—Joint Research Centre Institute
tion and vulnerability. IPCC Third Assessment Report. for Environment and Sustainability. 2010. http://eusoils.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University jrc.it/ESDB_Archive/glossary/Soil_Terms.html. (February
Press. 1,042 p. 2011).
[27] UN/ISDR (Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International

Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2002. Living with risk—
a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. 382 p.

United States Department of Agriculture
National Report on
Sustainable Forests—2010
FS-979 • June 2011

2010 Sustainability Report USDA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 Sustainability Report USDA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 Sustainability Report USDA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

United States Department of Agriculture

FS-979 • June 2011

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 i

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 iii

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 v

Purpose � The number and complexity of values and demands society

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 vii

viii National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

Letter from the Chief.............................................................................................................................................................................i

Part I. Background, Context, and Summary Analyses

Chapter 2. What the Data Tell Us.................................................................................................................................................... I-11

Chapter 3. Broadening and Deepening Our Commitment to Sustainability.................................................................................... I-23

Chapter 4. Looking Ahead to the Future......................................................................................................................................... I-37

Part II. Data Presentation

Criterion 1. Conservation of Biological Diversity.......................................................................................................................... II-15

Criterion 2. Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems....................................................................................... II-33

Criterion 3. Maintenance of Ecosystem Health and Vitality.......................................................................................................... II-45

Criterion 4. Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources..................................................................................... II-51

Criterion 5. Maintenance of Forest Contribution to Global Carbon Cycles................................................................................... II-59

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 ix

Background, Context, and Summary Analyses

Setting the Stage:

and their actions. What is different today from Roosevelt’s time

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–1

This updated model reflects the understanding that the

Figure I-1. Triple Bottom Line: interconnected and interdependent benefits.

Weak Sustainability Strong Sustainability

I–2 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–3

I–4 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

2. Globalization. The emergence of forest and wood products certification

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–5

I–6 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

Contemporary Challenges Facing Landscape-Scale Conservation

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–7

I–8 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–9

I–10 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

What the Data Tell Us

this effort and in the specific comments we received on the

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–11

I–12 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–13

I–14 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–15

I–16 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–17

I–18 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–19

I–20 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–21

Broadening and Deepening

Through continued use, the MP C&I framework is helping ex-

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–23

I–24 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–25

I–26 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010

National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010 I–27

I–28 National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010