Developing SOLEC Forest Indicators
Mervyn Han, ECO Federal Government Associate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
August 25, 2004
Covering roughly half of the basin landmass, forests are a vital inland component of the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem. Adding forest indicators to the SOLEC suite has been a priority in
recent years, and SOLEC 2004 will be marked by the submission of data on the first three
indicators of forest health.
Healthy forests are crucial to maintaining and restoring the waters of the Great Lakes.
Due to their central role in the hydrologic cycle, forests have major - and positive - impacts on
water resources. The presence of vegetation, porous soils and humus on forested land increases
interception of rainfall, water infiltration into the soil, and water removal through transpiration.
The combined effect is to decrease surface water run-off. Meanwhile, the extensive root systems
of trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants lock soil particles together, helping to prevent soil erosion.
These functions allow riparian forests to regulate storm water run-off and reduce the probability
of extreme flooding and sedimentation, thereby stabilizing shorelines and maintaining the
physical integrity of the watershed.
Forests also act as a water "filter" and thus are key to high quality water and healthy
aquatic ecosystems. By controlling run-off and soil erosion, forests reduce sediment yields in
surface water. Ecological processes on the forest floor cleanse water by taking up nutrients and
breaking down toxic contaminants. Shade from the canopy layer reduces water temperatures.
Forest leaf litter serves as an important food source for aquatic life, while woody debris in
streams, lakes and wetlands provide critical habitat for fish and invertebrates. As such, forests
can help to maintain the biological and chemical integrity of the watershed as well.
Evaluating forest health will therefore contribute to SOLEC's mandate of monitoring,
assessing and measuring progress made in achieving Great Lakes basin ecosystem health.
The SOLEC Forest Indicators Selection Process
In December 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency convened a bi-national
working group of forest agency and industry experts in forest sustainability to assist in the
development of SOLEC forest indicators. The group agreed to use the Montreal Process suite of
criteria and indicators as the starting point for discussion.
The Montreal Process is an international system for measuring sustainability in forest use
and management that has been adopted in the U.S. and Canada. Since 1995, the U.S., Canada,
and other Montreal Process signatories have worked to implement this common framework in
their respective jurisdictions. It is important to note that the U.S. and Canadian forestry
-------
agencies, as in other countries, have amended their assessment frameworks during the
implementation stage in order to accommodate domestic goals, values and priorities with respect
to forest use. Criteria and indicators have been added or removed, or rephrased in a manner that
changes scope and function. Further modifications have been made by forestry agencies at the
state or provincial level. These changes may complicate SOLEC reporting by introducing
differences in data collection and definitions across the Great Lakes basin. Still, considering the
difficulty SOLEC had encountered in its previous attempts to develop an independent set of
forest indicators, it appeared most constructive to integrate the Montreal Process in its original
form into the SOLEC indicator suite.
The Montreal Process comprises 7 criteria and 67 indicators. The term criterion refers to
a category of conditions or processes that serve as a standard for assessment. Each criterion is
characterized by a set of related indicators. Since the Montreal Process encompasses broader
issues of forest sustainability, beyond the impacts of forests on the watershed, the working group
identified the 6 criteria and 34 indicators that are direct or indirect measures of Great Lakes basin
health. Preliminary discussions on data availability were conducted simultaneously. Data gaps,
and differences in inventory methods and data definitions used by the U.S. and Canadian forestry
agencies, were noted. A summary of discussion points, along with the lists of criteria and
indicators determined to be relevant or not relevant to basin ecosystem health, can be found in
Appendix A.
The working group agreed that sufficient data are available to complete an assessment of
the first three indicators under Criterion 1: Conservation of Biological Diversity. The related
data and analysis can be found in the attached technical report and indicator descriptor. The
assessment finds that the area of forested land has been increasing across the basin in recent
decades, which is positive for basin health and water quality. Available data, however, does not
distinguish between forests that lie in riparian zones, where the impact on water quality is the
greatest, and those that do not. Data on the distribution of forests by forest type, age-class and
protected status is also available, although their implications for basin health are unclear.
Considerable work remains in finalizing the set of SOLEC forest indicators. There is a
number of Montreal Process criteria and indicators whose relevance to basin health remained
undetermined after the December 2003 meeting. The list of SOLEC forest indicators may
therefore expand in the future, as the understanding of relationships among forest ecosystems,
aquatic ecosystems, and watershed hydrology deepens. At the same time, the working group
advised SOLEC to consult a broader range of forest stakeholders, to gain new data and technical
expertise, and to ensure that the SOLEC indicator suite is viewed as credible from diverse
perspectives. The recent activity in developing SOLEC forest indicators should therefore be
seen as a first step towards a comprehensive reporting on the health of Great Lakes forests and
the related impacts on the basin ecosystem.
-------
Appendix A: Discussion Points for SOLEC Indicator Selection Meeting
The bi-national working group for the December 2003 meeting was composed of
representatives from the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the
Canadian Forest Service, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the National Council
for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) and the American Forest and Paper Association.
Representatives from the National Park Service, the Council of Great Lakes Industry, the Great
Lakes Forest Alliance, The Nature Conservancy, and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission had actively participated in discussions leading up to and after the December 2003
meeting, but were unable to attend the meeting itself.
The working group discussed each indicator under the seven Montreal Process criteria to
determine its relevance to Great Lakes basin health. Indicators were separated into three groups:
those that are direct or indirect measures of basin health (Table 1.1), those that are not relevant to
basin health (Table 1.2) and those whose status requires further discussion (Table 1.3).
Preliminary discussions on data availability were conducted simultaneously.
Indicators that are direct or indirect measures of Great Lakes basin health
Table 1.1 lists the 6 criteria and 34 indicators considered to be direct or indirect measures
of Great Lakes basin health. Many, if not all, of these indicators will be incorporated into the
SOLEC suite. Due to data gaps, however, reporting on all of these indicators may not be
possible at this time. For instance, the working group noted that Criterion 4 indicators, which
assess the conservation of soil and water resources, are the most important in the Montreal
Process with respect to water quantity and quality. However, since monitoring programs are
largely in the development phase, corresponding data remains sparse or unavailable.
In other cases, SOLEC reporting has been stymied by the lack of consensus on defining
the parameters by which data can be collected and analyzed. The working group experienced
particular difficulty in defining forest fragmentation, a Criterion 1 indicator. The disagreement
centered on whether tracts of land containing roads or single-species forest should be classified
as fragmented. The group advised that further discussion and research would be necessary
before the fragmentation indicator could be developed.
Indicators not critical for reporting Great Lakes basin health
Table 1.2 lists the criteria and indicators deemed not critical for SOLEC reporting. There
was some dissention for the Criterion 1 indicators on species diversity. A few working group
members contended that these indicators are indeed crucial for measuring forest health and have
impacts on the watershed. For the most part, however, it was agreed that the indicators in
question would not be included in the SOLEC suite.
Indicators whose relevance to Great Lakes basin health requires further discussion
As expected, there were criteria and indicators whose relevance to basin health remained
unresolved after the December 2003 meeting. These criteria and indicators are listed in Table
-------
1.3. Criterion 5 indicators, which deal with global carbon cycles, were tentatively left in Table
1.1 as indirect measures of forest and basin health. However, there were individual working
group members who questioned the geographic scope of these indicators, arguing that the global
focus of the data may not be specific or relevant to the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The
Criterion 7 indicators that cover legal, institutional, and economic concerns, were classified as
"unknown" in terms of relevance to forest and basin health. The working group pointed out that
these indicators, which are listed in Table 1.3, are phrased as guiding principles rather than
genuine indicators that can be measured and assessed. Additional work will therefore be
necessary to rewrite the Criterion 7 indicators and to determine whether they will be included in
the SOLEC suite.
-------
Table 1.1 Indicators: Direct or Indirect Measures of Great Lakes Basin Health
Criterion 1: Conservation of Biological Diversity
(1) Extent of area by forest type relative to total forest area
(2) Extent of area by forest type and by age class or successional stage
(3) Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories as defined by IUCN or other
classification systems
(5) Fragmentation of forest types
Criterion 2: Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
(10) Area of forest land and net area of forest land available for timber production
(11) Total growing stock of both merchantable and non-merchantable tree species on forest land
available for timber production
(13) Annual removal of wood products compared to the volume determined to be sustainable
Criterion 3: Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality
(15) Area and percent of forest affected by processes or agents beyond the range of historic
variation, e.g. by insects, disease, permanent flooding, salinisation, and domestic animals
(16) Area and percent of forest land subjected to levels of specific air pollutants (e.g. sulfates,
nitrate, ozone) or ultraviolet B that may cause negative impacts on the forest ecosystem
(17) Area and percent of forest land with diminished biological components indicative of
changes in the 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, etc.)
Criterion 4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources
(18) Area and percent of forest land with significant soil erosion
(19) Area and percent of forest land managed primarily for protective functions, e.g. watersheds,
flood protection, avalanche protection, riparian zones
(20) Percent of stream kilometers in forested catchments in which stream flow and timing has
significantly deviated from the historic range of variation
(21) Area and percent of forest land with significantly diminished soil organic matter and/or
changes in other soil chemical properties
(22) Area and percent of forest land with significant compaction or change in soil physical
properties resulting from human activities
(23) Percent of water bodies in forest area (e.g. stream 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 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
(25) Area and percent of forest land experiencing an accumulation of persistent toxic substances
Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles
(26) Total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool, and if appropriate, by forest type, age
class, and successional stages
(27) Contribution of forest ecosystems to the total global carbon budget, including absorption
and release of carbon (standing biomass, coarse woody debris, peat and soil carbon)
(28) Contribution of forest products to the global carbon budget
Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits
to meet the needs of societies
Production and consumption
(29) Value and volume of wood and wood products production, including value added through
downstream processing
(30) Value and quantities of production of non-wood forest products
(31) Supply and consumption of wood and wood products, including consumption per capita
(32) Value of wood and non-wood products production as percentage of GDP
(33) Degree of recycling of forest products
(34) Supply and consumption/use of non-wood products
Recreation and tourism
(35) Area and percent of forest land managed for general recreation and tourism, in relation to
the total area of forest land
(36) Number and type of facilities available for general recreation and tourism, in relation to
population and forest area
(37) Number of visitor days attributed to recreation and tourism, in relation to population and
forest area
Investment in the forest sector
(38) Value of investment, including investment in forest growing, forest health and management,
planted forests, wood processing, recreation and tourism
(39) Level of expenditure on research and development, and education
(40) Extension and use of new and improved technologies
(41) Rates of return on investment
-------
Table 1.2 Indicators: Not Critical for Reporting Great Lakes Basin Health
Criterion 1: Conservation of Biological Diversity
Ecosystem diversity
(4) Extent of area by forest type in protected areas defined by age class or success!onal stage
Species Diversity
(6) The number of forest dependent species
(7) The status (threatened, rare, vulnerable, endangered, or extinct) of forest dependent species
at risk of not maintaining viable breeding populations, as determined by legislation or
scientific assessment
Genetic diversity
(8) Number of forest dependent species that occupy a small portion of their former range
(9) Population levels of representative species from diverse habitats monitored across their
range
Criterion 2: Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems
(12) The area and growing stock of plantations of native and exotic species
(14) Annual removal of non-timber forest products (e.g. fur bearers, berries, mushrooms, game),
compared to the level determined to be sustainable
Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple socio-economic benefits
to meet the needs of societies
Cultural, social and spiritual needs and values
(42) Area and percent of forest land managed in relation to the total area of forest land to protect
the range of cultural, social and spiritual needs and values
(43) Non-consumptive use forest values
Employment and community needs
(44) Direct and indirect employment in the forest sector and forest sector employment as a
proportion of total employment
(45) Average wage rates and injury rates in major employment categories within the forest
sector
(46) Viability and adaptability to changing economic conditions, of forest dependent
communities, including indigenous communities
(47) Area and percent of forest land used for subsistence purposes
-------
Table 1.3 Indicators: Relevance to Basin Health Requires Further Discussion
Criterion 7: Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and
sustainable management
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 traditional rights of indigenous people, and provides means of resolving
property disputes by due process
(49) Provides for periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review that recognizes
the range of forest values, including coordination with relevant sectors
(50) Provides opportunities for public participation in public policy and decision-making related
to forests and public access to information
(51) Encourages best practice codes for forest management
(52) Provides for the management of forests to conserve special environmental, cultural, social
and/or scientific values
Extent to which the institutional framework supports the conservation and sustainable
management of forests, including the capacity to:
(53) Provide for public involvement activities and public education, awareness and extension
programs, and make available forest-related information
(54) Undertake and implement periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review
including cross-sectoral planning and coordination
(55) Develop and maintain human resource skills across relevant disciplines
(56) Develop and maintain efficient physical infrastructure to facilitate the supply of forest
products and services and support forest management
(57) Enforce laws, regulations and guidelines
Extent to which the economic framework (economic policies and measures) supports the
conservation and sustainable management of forests through:
(58) Investment and taxation policies and a regulatory environment which recognize the long-
term nature of investments and permit the flow of capital in and out of the forest sector in
response to market signals, non-market economic valuations, and public policy decisions in
order to meet long-term demands for forest products and services
(59) Non-discriminatory trade policies for forest products
-------
Capacity to measure and monitor changes in the conservation and sustainable management of
forests, including:
(60) Availability and extent of up-to-date data, statistics and other information important to
measuring or describing indicators associated with criteria 1-7
(61) Scope, frequency and statistical reliability of forest inventories, assessments, monitoring
and other relevant information
(62) Compatibility with other countries in measuring, monitoring and reporting on indicators
Capacity to conduct and apply research and development aimed at improving forest
management and delivery of forest goods and services, including:
(63) Development of scientific understanding of forest ecosystem characteristics and functions
(64) Development of methodologies to measure and 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) New technologies and the capacity to assess the socio-economic consequences associated
with the introduction of new technologies
(66) Enhancement of ability to predict impacts of human intervention on forest
(67) Ability to predict impacts on forests of possible climate change
-------
Indicator Descriptor: Forest Criterion #1. Conservation of Biological Diversity
Measures
(1) Extent of area by forest type relative to total forest area
(2) Extent of area by forest type and by age-class or success!onal stage
(3) Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories as defined by IUCN or other
classification systems
Purpose
Criterion 1 indicators describe the extent, composition and structure of Great Lakes basin forests.
They address the capacity of forests to perform the hydrologic functions, and host the organisms
and essential processes, that are essential to supplying high quality water and protecting the
physical integrity of the watershed.
Ecosystem Objective
Indicator (1) summarizes total forest area and area by forest type. The extent and diversity of
forest cover are positive indicators of basin health. Water draining forested watersheds is of high
quality, as measured by sediment yields, nutrient loadings, contaminant concentrations and
temperatures. Forests also control soil erosion, increase groundwater infiltration, stabilize
shorelines and regulate storm run-off Leaf litter and woody debris provide critical food and
habitat for fish and other aquatic wildlife.
Indicator (2) summarizes the structure of forest based on age class. Many ecological processes
and wildlife species are associated with vegetative structures (age, diameter and height of
vegetation) and success!onal stages (variable species of vegetation).
Indicator (3) summarizes the extent of forest by type in a protected area category. Protected
status ensures that specified tracts of land remain under forest cover, and is indicative of the
value a society and its policymakers place on forest conservation.
Endpoint
No endpoints yet. Establishing endpoints requires consensus on desired forest cover patterns.
Features
U.S. data from U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Database. Raw data
available online at: http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/fiadb 17_dump/fiadb 17_dump.htm. These
are statewide data sets and therefore require geoprocessing using GIS software to extract data
relevant to basin only. Canadian data courtesy of Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Illustration
Indicator (1): Pie chart to show proportions of total forest area that lie within each forest type.
Indicator (2): Line graphs to compare age-class distributions, by area, of the major forest types
(maple-beech-birch, aspen-birch, white-red-jack pine, spruce-fir) to the age-class distribution of
the forest at large. Separate graphs will be used for the U.S. and Canadian basin forests, because
there are significant differences in the age-class distributions of the two countries' basin forests.
-------
Indicator (3): Bar chart to highlight the protection rate (percentage of area under protected
status) for major forest types. Again, separate charts will be used for the U.S. and Canada
because definitions of protected forest differ slightly.
Limitations
Indicator (1): Data do not indicate if forests are located in riparian zones, where the impact on
the watershed is the greatest. More importantly, the data do not indicate if the expansion in
forest area is occurring in riparian zones.
Indicator (2): No data on extent of forest by success!onal stage. Although certain species are
associated with the various successional stages (aspen-birch tends to be early successional and
maple-beech-birch is mid- to late-successional), designation of successional stage is currently
made by professional judgment rather than a standard protocol.
Indicator (3): IUCN, U.S. and Ontario definitions of protected areas differ slightly. There is
substantial overlap among these definitions, but a more consistent classification system would
ensure proper accounting of protected areas and would enable aggregation of the two countries'
data. Moreover, existing definitions only incorporates public land and does not include forests
that may be protected through conservation easements and land trusts, or timber lands managed
in a sustainable manner.
Interpretation
Implications for water quality and quantity are difficult to establish, but the data provide insight
on general trends in forest sustainability. Healthy, vigorous forests are indeed crucial to basin
ecosystem health. Interpreting the data with respect to forest health, however, will require
additional assistance from forestry experts and stakeholders.
Comments
Once the U.S.D.A. Forest Service updates Ohio data (current set is from 1991), then the area
covered by riparian forests within the U.S. basin can be calculated. Changes in data definitions
made in 1999 make it difficult to aggregate Ohio data with data from the other states, which were
collected in 2001-2002.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issues: habitat, water quality, run-off regulation, shoreline stability
SOLEC Groupings: Habitat and Biodiversity
GLWQA Annex(es): 1 (indirectly)
IJC Desired Outcome(s): Biological Community Integrity and Diversity, Physical Environment
Integrity (Quality and Quantity of Stream Base Flow)
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): Degradation of aesthetics, Loss offish or wildlife habitat,
Degradation offish or wildlife populations
Last Revised
August 20, 2004
-------
Technical Report: Forest Criterion #1. Conservation of Biological Diversity
Related Indicators:
(1) Extent of area by forest type relative to total forest area
(2) Extent of area by forest type and by age-class or success!onal stage
(3) Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories as defined by IUCN or other
classification systems
Assessment: Mixed, Improving
Purpose
Criterion 1 indicators describe the extent, composition and structure of Great Lakes basin forests.
They address the capacity of forests to perform the hydrologic functions, and host the organisms
and essential processes, that are essential to supplying high quality water and protecting the
physical integrity of the watershed.
Ecosystem Objective
Indicator (1) summarizes total forest area and area by forest type. The extent and diversity of
forest cover are positive indicators of basin health. Water draining forested watersheds is of high
quality, as measured by sediment yields, nutrient loadings, contaminant concentrations and
temperatures. Forests also control soil erosion, increase groundwater infiltration, stabilize
shorelines and regulate storm run-off Leaf litter and woody debris provide critical food and
habitat for fish and other aquatic wildlife.
Indicator (2) summarizes the structure of forest based on age class. Many ecological processes
and wildlife species are associated with vegetative structures (age, diameter and height of
vegetation) and success!onal stages (variable species of vegetation).
Indicator (3) summarizes the extent of forest by type in a protected area category. Protected
status ensures that specified tracts of land remain under forest cover, and is indicative of the
value a society and its policymakers place on forest conservation.
State of the Ecosystem
Indicator (1): Forests cover 27.8 million hectares, or about half (51%), of the land in the Great
Lakes basin. The U.S. side of the basin contains 14.8 million hectares of forests (47% of the
U.S. basin), while the Canadian side contains 13.0 million hectares (57% of the Canadian basin).
Maple-beech-birch is the most extensive forest type, representing 7.6 million hectares, or 27% of
total forest area in the basin. Aspen-birch forests constitute the second-largest forest type,
covering 6.5 million hectares, or 23% of the total. Other major types include spruce-fir forests
(5.0 million hectares, or 18% of total forest area) and white-red-jack pine forests (2.7 million
hectares, or 10% of total forest area.) Complete data are available in Table 1.1
Implications for the health of Great Lakes forests and the basin ecosystem are difficult to
establish. On a positive note, total forest area appears to have increased across the Great Lakes
basin in recent decades (see Table 1.2). Expanding forest area is associated with positive
-------
impacts on water quality and quantity. Due to changes in data definitions, however, it is difficult
to determine whether the growth in forest area is occurring in riparian zones, where the impact
on water quality is the greatest.
Moreover, there is no consensus on how much land in the basin should be forested, much less on
how much land should be covered by each forest type. Comparisons to historical forest cover,
although of limited utility in developing landscape goals, can illustrate the range of variation
experienced within the basin since the time of European settlement (see insert).
Indicator (2): Basin-wide, the 41-60 and 61-80 year age-classes are dominant and together
represent 53% of total forest area. Forests under 40 years of age make up a further 23%, while
those in the 100+ year age-classes constitute 9% of total forest area. Table 2.1 contains complete
data on age-class distribution by area within each forest type.
Because forests are dynamic and different tree species have different growth patterns, age
distribution varies by forest type. Aspen-birch and white-red-jack pine forests tend to be
younger, being more concentrated in the 21-40 and 41-60 year age classes, while maple-beech-
birch forests are heavily concentrated in the 61-80 year age class. Spruce-fir forests contain
significant old growth, with 21% by area in the 100+ year age classes, more than twice the
overall level (9%) within those age classes.
The age-class distribution of U.S. basin forests mirrors the overall trend, but with a higher
concentration in the 41-60 and 61-80 year age classes, which contain 58% of total forest area on
the U.S. side. Canadian Great Lakes forests have a distribution balanced towards older age
classes, with 17% by area in the 100+ year age classes, compared to 3% in the U.S. basin. Also,
a wider range of forest types is represented in Canadian old growth forests. At the same time,
Canadian basin forests contain a substantially higher area of non-stocked forests (timber land
less than 10% stocked with live trees) that by definition lies almost exclusively in the 0-20 year
age class. Canadian basin forests also have a relatively small area in the 21-40 year age class.
What this means for forest and basin health is not clear. Age-class data can serve as a coarse
surrogate for the vegetative structure (height and diameter) of a forest, and can be combined with
data from other indicators to provide insight on forest sustainability.
Data on the extent of forest area by success!onal stage are not available. Although certain tree
species are associated with the various successional stages, a standard and quantifiable protocol
for identifying successional stage has not yet been developed. It is expected, however, that in the
absence of disturbance, the area covered by early-successional forest types, such as aspen-birch,
is likely to decline as forests convert to late-successional types, such as maple-beech-birch.
Indicator (3): In the U.S. basin, 3.5% of forested land, comprising 517,000 hectares, is in a
protected area category. Among major forest types, 5.4% of maple-beech-birch (308,000
hectares), 2.7% of aspen-birch (73,000 hectares), 4.4% of spruce-fir (79,000 hectares) and 0.6%
of white-red-jack pine forests (7,000 hectares) are considered to have protected status. The
"other softwoods" category has the highest protection rate, with 7.7%, or 12,000 of its 157,000
hectares, protected from harvest.
-------
On the Canadian side, 10.8% of forest area, or 1.4 million hectares, are protected. Protection
rates range from 9.2% for maple-beech-birch (172,000 hectares) and 10.7% for spruce-fir forests
(340,000 hectares), to 12.7% for white-red-jack pine (191,000 hectares) and 13.0% for aspen-
birch forests (490,000 hectares). The oak-pine category has the highest protection rate, with
22.5%, or 20,000 of its 90,000 hectares, under protected status. See complete data in Table 3.1.
Implications for forest and basin health are again difficult to establish. On one hand, the extent
of forest area with protected status appears to have increased in recent decades (see Table 3.2).
Particularly large increases in protected forest area in Ontario, New York and Minnesota have
more than offset reported declines in Michigan and Wisconsin. However, due to changes in data
definitions, it is difficult to determine whether the expansion or contraction of protected forests is
occurring in riparian zones, where the impact on water quality is the greatest.
There is also no consensus on what proportion of forest land should be protected. Nationally,
forest protection rates are estimated to be 8.4% in Canada1 and 14% in the U.S.2 As for the range
of variation in protection rates by forest types, protected areas should be representative of the
diversity in forest composition within a larger area. However, defining what constitutes this
"larger area" is problematic. Policymakers often have had a different jurisdiction than the Great
Lakes basin in mind when deciding where to locate protected areas. Since forests are dynamic,
the tree species and forest types found on an individual plot of protected land can change over
time due to successional processes.
Differences among the U.S., Canadian, and IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of
Nature) definitions of protected areas should also be noted. The IUCN standard contains six
categories of protected areas - strict nature reserves/wilderness areas, national parks, natural
monuments, habitat/species management areas, protected landscapes/seascapes, and managed
resource protection areas. The U.S. defines protected areas as forests "reserved from harvest by
law or administrative regulation," including designated Federal Wilderness areas, National Parks
and Lakeshores, and state designated areas.3 Ontario defines protected areas as national parks,
conservation reserves, and its six classes of provincial parks - wilderness, natural environment,
waterway, nature reserve, historical and recreational.4 There is substantial overlap among the
U.S., Ontario and IUCN definitions, but a more consistent classification system would ensure
proper accounting of protected areas.
Common to the U.S., Ontario and IUCN definitions is that they only include forests in the public
domain. However, there are privately-owned forests similarly reserved from harvest by land
trusts, conservation easements and other initiatives. Inclusion of these forests under this
indicator would provide a more complete definition of protected forest areas.
Moreover, there is debate on how protected status relates to forest sustainability, water quality,
and ecosystem health. In many cases, protected status was conferred onto forests for their scenic
or recreational value, which may not contribute significantly to conservation or watershed
management goals. On the other hand, forests available for harvest, whether controlled by the
national forest system, state or local governments, tribal governments, industry or private
landowners, can be managed with the stated purpose of conserving forest and basin health.
-------
Pressures and Management Implications
Urbanization, seasonal home construction and increased recreational use - driven in part by the
desire of an aging and more affluent population to spend time near natural settings - are among
the general demands being placed on forest resources nationwide. Stakeholder discussion will be
critical in identifying pressures and management implications, particularly those on a localized
basis, that are specific to Great Lakes basin forests. These discussions will certainly add to
longstanding debates on strategies for sustainable forest management.
1 World Wildlife Fund, 1999. Canada's commitment to forest protected areas: Forests for life. WWF Status
Report. World Wildlife Fund Canada. Toronto, ON. 17 p. Cited in Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2000.
Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada: National Status 2000. p.7
2 Guldin, R. W. and Kaiser, H. F. 2004. National Report on Sustainable Forests-2003. U.S.D.A. Forest Service.
FS-766. p.88
3 Smith, W. B. 2004. United States 2003 Report on Sustainable Forests, Data Report: Criterion 1,
Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, Conservation of Biological Diversity. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. FS-766A. p.24
4 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. State of the Forest Report, 2001. Queen's Printer for Ontario.
pp.3-23
-------
Other Softwoods
0.7%
Oak-Pine
0.6% Other 1.9%
Spruce-Jack Pine-Aspen
1.7%
Nonstocked
4.5%
Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
5.9%
Oak-Hickory
6.6%
White-Red-Jack Pine
9.7%
Maple-Beech-Birch
27.3%
Spruce-Fir
17.9%
Aspen-Birch
23.2%
Figure 1. Proportion of Area by Forest Type in Great Lakes basin.
Sources: USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Database. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
-------
0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-200 200+
Maple-beech-birch Aspen-birch Spruce-fir White-red-jack pine <
•Overall
Figure 2a. Age-class Distribution of U.S. Great Lakes basin forests.
Source: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Database.
0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101-120 121-140 141-160 161-200 200+
Maple-beech-birch'
•Aspen-birch '
•Spruce-fir •
•White-red-jack pine <
•Overall
Figure 2b. Age-class Distribution of Canadian Great Lakes basin forests.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
-------
TOTAL
Other Softwoods
White-Red-Jack Pine
Spruce-Fir
Aspen-Birch
Maple-Beech-Birch
D
a
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
% of Area within Protected Category
Figure 3a. Percent of U.S. Great Lakes basin forests in protected category.
Source: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Database.
TOTAL
Oak-Pine
White-Red-Jack Pine
Maple-Beech-Birch
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
% of Area within Protected Category
25%
Figure 3b. Percent of Canadian Great Lakes basin forests in protected category.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
-------
Historical Range of Variation in the Great Lakes Forests of
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan
Data on the historic range of variation in extent of total forest area and area by forest type since the time
of European settlement are available for Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan in a U.S. Geological
Survey study.6 Pre-settlement data were adapted from the General Land Office (GLO) surveys
conducted between 1815 and 1866, while modern data were compiled from the USDA Forest Service's
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) database for the period 1977-1983.
Vegetation units in the GLO survey were simplified to allow comparison to the FIA forest type groups.
The re-classification was conducted based on dominant tree species, as follows:
GLO Vegetation Unit
Boreal Forest-Conifer Swamp
Pine Forest-Barrens
Northern Mesic Forest
Aspen-Birch
Oak Forest-Savanna
Wet Mesic Forest
Major Tree Species
White spruce, balsam fir,
northern white cedar, swamp conifer
forest of black spruce and tamarack
White pine, red pine, jack pine
Sugar maple, basswood, yellow birch
beech, hemlock, some oaks
Aspen, paper birch
Forest and savanna areas of red oak,
black oak, white oak and bur oak
Lowland forests of American elm,
green and black ash, silver maple
FIA Forest Type Group
Spruce-fir
White-red-jack pine
Maple-beech-birch
Aspen-birch
Oak-hickory
Elm-ash-cottonwood
The data presented in the USGS study are statewide for Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, so the
U.S. EPA-GLNPO clipped the data using GIS software to extract information relevant to the portions of
each state that lie within the Great Lakes watershed. This exercise revealed that extent of area covered
by forest declined by 37% between the mid-19th century and 1977-1983, due primarily to the conversion
of northern mesic forest (maple-beech-birch) and oak forest (oak-hickory) in southern Wisconsin and
Michigan to urban and agricultural use.
By forest type, area covered by pine forests (white-red-jack pine) declined by 81%, northern mesic
forests (maple-beech-birch) by 64%, and boreal forests (spruce-fir) by 63% over the same period,
although the area covered by aspen-birch forests increased by 212%. The late-19th century was marked
by extensive logging of pine forests and subsequent conversion to early success!onal aspen-birch forests.
Maps depicting the changes in forest cover can be found on the following page.
-------
However, comparing FIA data from 1977-1983 to the most recent data collected in 2001-2002 indicates
that further changes have occurred over the past quarter-century. Total forest area has expanded by 5%
over the period, while area covered by white-red-jack pine forests has increased by 18%, and maple-
beech-birch forests (northern mesic) by 13%. At the same time, aspen-birch forests have retreated by
3%, and spruce-fir (boreal) forests have declined by 12%. Meanwhile, the area of non-stocked forest
land (timber land less than 10% stocked with live trees) has dropped by 9%. These data suggest a
maturation and steady recovery over recent decades in the Great Lakes forests of Minnesota, Wisconsin
and Michigan, as reflected by the progression of natural successional patterns, replanting of non-forest
areas, and regeneration of non-stocked forest lands.
^ Boreal Forest and Conifer Swam
^ Pine Forest and Barrens
^] Northern Mesic Forest
| | Aspen-Birch Forest
| Oak Forest and Savanna
^ Wet Mesic Forest
| | Non-Forest
I I Lake
0
^ Spruce-fir
^^| Jack-white-red pine
| Maple-beech-birch
| Aspen-birch
| | Oak-hickory
| Elm-asn-cottohwooci
| Non-forest
| ] Lake
Pre-settlement Forest
Source: USGS, based on
General Land Office survey
(1815-1866)
Modern Forest
Source: USGS, based on USD A
Forest Service, Forest Inventory
and Analysis Database
(1977-1983)
Cole, K., Stearns, F., Guntenspergen, G., Davis, M. and Walker, K. 1998. Historical Landcover Changes in the Great Lakes Region. In Perspectives on
the land-use history of North America: a context for understanding our changing environment, ed. Sisk, T.D., Ch. 6. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological
Resources Division, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR 1998-0003.
-------
Data Tables: Indicator (1). Extent of Forest Type Relative to Total Forest Area
Table 1.1 Forest Area by Forest Type
in hectares
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Spruce-Fir
White-Red-Jack Pine
Oak-Hickory
Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
Spruce- Jack Pine-Aspen
Other Softwoods
Oak-Pine
Other
Non- stocked
TOTAL FOREST AREA
TOTAL LAND AREA IN BASIN
Area of Forest Type
7,574,099
6,460,568
4,964,154
2,699,360
1,838,136
1,632,339
480,402
182,219
178,744
519,266
1,262,441
27,791,728
54,757,612
% of Total Forest Area
27.3%
23.3%
17.9%
9.7%
6.6%
5.9%
1.7%
0.7%
0.6%
1.9%
4.5%
Table 1.2 Expansion in Forest Area, by State/Province
in hectares
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio*
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Ontario **
Earliest Available
nil (1985)
118,414(1986)
7,433,913 (1980)
1,128,086(1977)
2,616,380(1993)
N/A
64,331 (1989)
2,053,865 (1983)
N/A
Most Recent Available
5,726 (2002)
121,852 (2002)
7,848,153 (2001)
1,208,050 (2002)
2,909,938 (2002)
453,741 (1991)
76,885 (2002)
2,122,031 (2002)
13,045,401 **
Change
***
+3,438
+414,240
+79,964
+293,558
N/A
***
+68,166
N/A
% Change
***
+2.9%
+5.6%
+7.1%
+11.2%
N/A
***
+3.3%
N/A
* Ohio data only available for 1991
** Ontario data a mosaic of 1978-2001 data
*** Illinois and Pennsylvania excluded from calculations due to small sample area
-------
Data Tables: Indicator (2). Extent of Area by Forest Type and by Age-Class or Successional Stage
Table 2.1 Age-class Distribution within Forest Type
Combined
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Spruce-Fir
White-Red-Jack Pine
Oak-Hickory
Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
Spruce-Jack Pine-
Aspen
Other Softwoods
Oak-Pine
Other
Non-stocked
TOTAL
0-20
4.9%
10.5%
4.1%
9.9%
7.8%
6.8%
4.5%
6.5%
4.4%
2.1%
99.5%
11.1%
21-40
10.2%
14.9%
7.2%
16.3%
15.9%
21.1%
8.5%
42.0%
12.5%
7.3%
0.2%
12.1%
41-60
25.9%
28.8%
21.5%
26.4%
26.6%
39.0%
19.9%
38.4%
21.3%
30.2%
0.1%
25.5%
61-80
33.3%
27.8%
26.9%
22.6%
27.0%
20.4%
28.4%
4.6%
34.9%
38.8%
0.1%
27.0%
81-100
14.6%
13.5%
19.4%
15.1%
11.8%
6.1%
22.4%
3.7%
18.5%
15.5%
0.1%
14.0%
101-120
4.4%
3.5%
9.8%
5.7%
3.3%
2.1%
8.8%
2.1%
5.5%
3.9%
<0.1%
4.9%
121-140
2.5%
0.8%
7.2%
2.4%
0.6%
0.7%
4.4%
1.4%
2.0%
1.5%
-
2.6%
141-160
1.7%
0.1%
3.3%
0.9%
0.1%
0.3%
1.9%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
-
1.2%
161-200
0.8%
<0.1%
0.5%
0.5%
<0.1%
<0.1%
1.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
-
0.4%
200+
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
<0.1%
-
0.1%
-
<0.1%
0.1%
<0.1%
< 0.1%
U.S. Great Lakes Basin
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Spruce-Fir
White-Red-Jack Pine
Oak-Hickory
Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
Spruce-Jack Pine-
Aspen
Other Softwoods
Oak-Pine
Other
Non-stocked
TOTAL
0-20
6.3%
21.4%
5.9%
12.5%
8.3%
7.8%
7.2%
7.9%
100.0%
10.5%
21-40
12.5%
24.8%
12.2%
26.8%
16.6%
21.4%
47.9%
22.2%
-
17.5%
41-60
30.5%
30.9%
30.4%
36.1%
27.2%
38.6%
42.9%
27.0%
-
31.3%
61-80
35.5%
19.1%
28.5%
16.8%
26.4%
18.7%
1.5%
35.4%
-
26.9%
81-100
10.9%
3.3%
15.5%
5.8%
10.4%
6.0%
-
7.4%
-
8.9%
101-120
1.6%
0.4%
4.2%
1.6%
3.2%
2.2%
-
-
-
1.9%
121-140
0.3%
0.1%
1.6%
0.4%
0.5%
0.8%
-
-
-
0.5%
141-160
0.2%
<0.1%
1.3%
-
0.1%
0.3%
-
-
-
0.3%
161-200
<0.1%
-
0.3%
-
-
-
-
-
-
<0.1%
200+
-
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
-
-
-
-
-
< 0.1%
Canadian Great Lakes Basin
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Spruce-Fir
White-Red-Jack Pine
Oak-Hickory
Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
Spruce-Jack Pine-
Aspen
Other Softwoods
Oak-Pine
Other
Non-stocked
TOTAL
0-20
0.7%
2.8%
3.1%
7.9%
1.3%
2.3%
4.5%
2.2%
0.9%
2.1%
99.5%
11.8%
21-40
3.4%
7.9%
4.3%
8.0%
5.1%
19.9%
8.5%
5.0%
2.0%
7.3%
0.3%
5.9%
41-60
11.8%
27.2%
16.6%
18.6%
18.9%
40.6%
19.9%
10.5%
15.6%
30.2%
0.1%
19.0%
61-80
26.6%
33.9%
26.0%
27.3%
36.2%
28.0%
28.4%
23.8%
34.3%
38.8%
0.1%
27.0%
81-100
25.7%
20.7%
21.6%
22.5%
31.9%
7.0%
22.4%
26.3%
29.5%
15.5%
0.1%
19.7%
101-120
13.1%
5.8%
13.0%
9.0%
4.9%
1.7%
8.8%
14.7%
11.0%
3.9%
<0.1%
8.4%
121-140
8.8%
1.3%
10.4%
4.1%
1.1%
0.5%
4.4%
10.4%
4.1%
1.5%
-
4.9%
141-160
6.2%
0.2%
4.5%
1.5%
0.3%
0.1%
2/0%
6.0%
1.3%
0.4%
-
2.3%
161-200
3.2%
0.1%
0.7%
0.9%
0.3%
0.1%
1.1%
1.1%
0.4%
0.1%
-
0.8%
200+
0.5%
<0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
<0.1%
0.1%
-
<0.1%
0.1%
<0.1%
0.1%
-------
Data Tables: Indicator (3). Extent of Area by Forest Type in Protected Area Categories as
Defined by IUCN or Other Classification Systems
Table 3.1 Protected Area by Forest Type
U.S. Great Lakes Basin
in hectares
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Spruce-Fir
White-Red-Jack Pine
Oak-Hickory
Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
Spruce- Jack Pine- Aspen
Other Softwoods
Oak-Pine
Other
Non-stocked
TOTAL
Area
5,693,178
2,684,602
1,784,559
1,195,641
1,716,488
1,331,321
-
156,901
89,200
-
94,485
14,746,328
Protected Area
308,332
73,402
79,060
6,639
21,823
15,863
-
12,139
-
-
-
517,260
Protected as % of Area
5.4%
2.7%
4.4%
0.6%
1.3%
1.2%
-
7.7%
-
-
-
3.5%
Canadian Great Lakes Basin
in hectares
Maple-Beech-Birch
Aspen-Birch
Spruce-Fir
White-Red-Jack Pine
Oak-Hickory
Elm-Ash-Cottonwood
Spruce- Jack Pine- Aspen
Other Softwoods
Oak-Pine
Other
Non-stocked
TOTAL
Area
1,880,921
3,775,966
3,179,595
1,503,720
121,648
301,019
480,402
25,318
89,544
519,266
1,168,003
13,045,401
Protected Area
172,045
490,108
339,953
191,345
18,819
8,096
53,180
2,099
20,138
55,991
50,754
1,402,527
Protected as % of Area
9.2%
13.0%
10.7%
12.7%
15.5%
2.7%
11.1%
8.3%
22.5%
10.8%
4.4%
10.8%
Table 3.2 Changes in Protected Forest Area by State/Province
in hectares
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Ohio*
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Ontario
Earliest Available
nil (1985)
5,828 (1986)
275,936 (1980)
567 (1977)
53,765 (1993)
N/A
1,013 (1989)
51,194(1983)
585,072 (1998)
Most Recent Available
1,538 (2002)
10,938 (2002)
124,034 (2001)
57,620 (2002)
278,157(2002)
21,215(1991)
nil (2002)
23,758 (2002)
1,402,528 (2001)
Change
**
+ 5,110
- 151,902
+ 57,053
+ 224,392
N/A
**
-27,436
+ 817,456
* Ohio data only available for 1991
** Illinois and Pennsylvania excluded from calculations due to small sample area
-------
Acknowledgements
Author: Mervyn Han, ECO Federal Government Associate on contract to U.S. EPA-GLNPO. Julie Sims (U.S. EPA-GLNPO), Robert Miller
(Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources), Connie Carpenter (U.S.D.A. Forest Service) and Earl Leatherberry (U.S.D.A. Forest Service) assisted in the
preparation of this report.
Advice on the development and selection of forest indicators was received from: Rich Greenwood (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources), Bill
Meades (Natural Resources Canada), Dave Kreutzweiser (Natural Resources Canada), Bill Route (National Park Service), Stephen Schlobohm
(U.S.D.A. Forest Service), Dain Maddox (U.S.D.A. Forest Service), Joe Miller (U.S.D.A. Forest Service), Greg Nowacki (U.S.D.A. Forest Service),
Connie Carpenter (U.S.D.A. Forest Service), Earl Leatherberry (U.S.D.A. Forest Service), Teague Prichard (Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources), Ann McCammon Soltis (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission), Dale Phenicie (Council of Great Lakes Industry), Ben
Wigley (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.), Brad Williams (American Forests and Paper Association), Randy Swaty (The
Nature Conservancy), and Wendy Hinrichs-Sanders (Great Lakes Forest Alliance).
Sources
Alerich, C. L., Klevgard, L., Liff, C., and Miles, P. D. 2004. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and Users Guide
Version 1.7. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, North Central Research Station. NC-218.
Available online: http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/fiadb_documentation/FIADB_DOCUMENTATION.htm
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2000. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada: National Status 2000.
Available online: http://www.ccfm.org/ci/2000_e.html
Carpenter, C., Giffen, C., and Miller-Weeks, M. 2003. Sustainability Assessment Highlights forthe Northern United States. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-TP-05-03.
Available online: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/sustainabilitv/pdf/front cover.pdf
Cole, K., Stearns, F., Guntenspergen, G., Davis, M. and Walker, K. 1998. Historical Landcover Changes in the Great Lakes Region. In Perspectives
on the land-use history of North America: a context for understanding our changing environment, ed. Sisk, T.D., Ch. 6. U.S. Geological Survey,
Biological Resources Division, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR 1998-0003.
Available online: http://biology.usgs.gov/luhna/chap6.html
Eubanks, C. E. and Meadows, D. 2002. A Soil Bioengineering Guide for Streambank and Lakeshore Stabilization. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Technology and Development Program. FS-683.
Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/soil-bio-guide/
Guldin, R. W. and Kaiser, H. F. 2004. National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2003. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. FS-766.
Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/documents/SustainableForests.pdf
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. State of the Forest Report, 2001. Queen's Printer for Ontario.
Available online: http://ontariosforests.mnr.gov.on.ca/spectrasites/Viewers/showArticle.cfm?id=20661E52-EE91-453D-
9BD475CE675F7DlA&method=DISPLAYFULLNOBARNOTITLE R&ObiectID=20661E52-EE91-453D-9BD475CE675F7DlA
Sedell, J., Sharpe, M., Dravnieks Apple, D., Copenhagen, M. and Furniss, M. 2000. Water and the Forest Service. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Policy
Analysis. FS-660.
Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/.ftproot/pub/water/water.pdf
Smith, W. B. 2004. United States 2003 Report on Sustainable Forests, Data Report: Criterion 1, Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, Conservation of Biological
Diversity. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. FS-766A.
Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/contents.htm
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 2000 RPA Assessment of Forest and Range Lands. FS-687.
Available online: http://svinet2.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa/publications in support of the 2.htm
Canadian Great Lakes basin forest data are courtesy of Larry Watkins (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources).
U.S. Great Lakes basin forest data were compiled and analyzed on GIS software by the author using the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Forest Inventory
and Analysis database, with assistance from Geoffrey Holden (U.S.D.A. Forest Service). Raw data files available for download at:
http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/fiadbl7 dump/fiadbl? dump.htm
Historical statewide forest data for Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are courtesy of Kenneth Cole (U.S. Geological Survey) and were clipped to
Great Lakes basin boundary using GIS software by the author.
------- |