Readers: here is a proposed summary of the Committee of Scientists
Report. It will be used in the Conference Call on Dec. 15. As with
previous drafts, it is subject to major revision. Norm Johnson

#  **SUMMARY**

**The Committee's Assignment: Suggest A Framework For Planning Under
Current Law And Policy That Could Last A Generation**

# 

In December 1997, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman convened a
Committee of Scientists to review and evaluate the Forest Service's land
management planning process and identify changes that might be needed to
the planning regulations. Key phrases from that Charter include:
"\...make recommendations on how to best accomplish sound resource
planning within the established framework of environmental laws and
within the statutory mission of the Forest Service," "\...provide
technical advice on the land and resource management planning process,
and provide material for the Forest Service to consider for
incorporation into the revised planning regulations\...," and
"\...recommend improvements in Forest Service coordination with other
federal land management or resource protection agencies, state and local
government agencies, and tribal governments while recognizing the unique
roles and responsibilities of each agency in the planning process."

In his initial meeting with the Committee, UnderSecretary Lyons
emphasized that he wanted the Committee to develop a framework for land
and resource planning that could last at least a generation. Thus, the
UnderSecretary asked the Committee to dream a little\--to develop a set
of concepts and principles that land and resource planning could work
toward.

**The Committee's Approach: Building on the Innovation Occurring in the
Forest Service Across the Country**

The Committee traveled around the country, visiting each Forest Service
region and hearing from Forest Service employees and many interested
members of the public who offered their ideas and shared their concerns
about planning and management of national forests and grasslands.

As the Committee learned more about the latest innovations in the
planning of the national forests and grasslands, it became clearer that
different parts of the Forest Service were rapidly developing the
elements of a new planning framework as they struggled to update and
revise their plans. Understandably, the planners, specialists, and
mangers can't wait for a committee of scientists to suggest a design for
planning. In response to crisis, experience, and need, innovation in
planning abounds on the national forests and grasslands across the land.

Many of the approaches and innovations suggested here are already being
tried in different regions across the country; in fact we learned of
them from the critiques of planning performed by the Forest Service and
others, and from our meetings across the country with Forest Service
employees and the public. We have utilized these discussions in three
ways. First, they helped us learn an enormous amount about planning.
Second, they enabled us to test the validity and practicality of our own
ideas. Finally, they provided a number of examples that we have included
in the report\--often in sidebars scattered throughout the report.

**Suggested Central Organizing Principle: Ecological, Economic, And
Social Sustainability as a Framework for Human Use of the National
Forests And Grasslands**

The national forests and grasslands constitute an extraordinary national
legacy created by people of vision and preserved for future generations
by diligent and farsighted public servants and citizens. They are the
people's lands, emblems of our democratic traditions.

These lands can provide many and diverse benefits to the American
people. These include clean air and water, productive soils, biological
diversity, goods and services, employment opportunities, community
benefits, recreation, and naturalness. They also give us intangible
qualities such as beauty, inspiration, and wonder.

Yet, these benefits depend upon the long-term sustainability of the
watersheds, forests, and rangelands and the ecological, economic, and
social benefits that they can provide. Accordingly, the first priority
for stewardship in the national forests and grasslands must be to
maintain and restore the sustainability of watersheds, forests, and
rangelands for present and future generations. Building on this
foundation of sustainability, the national forests and grasslands should
provide a wide variety of uses, values, products, and services that are
important to so many Americans, including outdoor recreation, forage,
timber, wildlife and fish, water use, and minerals.

The concept of sustainability represents a common vision, a collective
goal and standards for measuring progress. The shift from sustained
yield to sustainability embodies a significant change from production
techniques designed to ensure sustained commodity flows over time to a
broadened focus that encompasses socio-economic contributions and
benefits, the participation of people especially in rural communities,
and multiple environmental benefits while maintaining the potential to
respond to evolving demands. International agreements all define
sustainability as composed of interdependent components - social,
economic, ecological and often institutional. These components are
inextricably interrelated and apply everywhere to lands, waters, and
people.

As a common vision, the essence of the concept of sustainability is the
integration of social, economic and ecological systems. As a collective
goal, sustainability means meeting the needs of the present generation
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs. As a vision and goal, sustainability marks a change from a focus
on biological systems separated from their social and economic context.
It is a matter of history and common sense that sustainability must
include people and economic relationships if ecological systems are to
continue to support the current and future generations.

As a standard for measuring progress, principles of sustainability and
criteria for measuring the extent to which conditions and actions meet
them are established in world-wide agreements and may soon be part of a
global convention on forests. Key principles include: maintaining
ecological functions, conditions, and biodiversity; democratic processes
for decision making; adaptive management; integration of ecological,
cultural and economic systems including spiritual resources;
intergenerational equity; ambiguity and the necessity of choice. These
fundamental principles are common throughout the discussions of
sustainability. From them, international agreements have defined
criteria and indicators for measuring progress and achievements. Indeed,
global coalitions of public and private organizations have established
processes for certification of sustainable forests in private or public
ownership.

Within this emerging global context of sustainability, achieving
ecological sustainability is inextricably linked to social and economic
sustainability. This interdependence is the reason institutional aspects
of sustainability are often added as an integral component of
sustainability\--property systems, legal frameworks, and social and
economic infrastructure are essential to support sustainability. The
role of the federal forests and grasslands in the United States needs to
be placed within this global context.

**Ecological Sustainability\--The Foundation Of National Forest
Stewardship**

The guiding star for planning is sustainability. Like other overarching
national objectives, sustainability is broadly aspirational and can be
difficult to define in concrete terms. Yet, especially considering the
increased human pressures on the national forests and grasslands, it
becomes ever more essential that planning and management begin with a
central tenant of sustainability\--that our use today does not impair
the functioning of ecological processes and the ability of these natural
resources to contribute economically and socially in the future.

A suite of laws call for federal agencies to pursue ecological
sustainability---often in terms of conservation of native species and
ecological productivity. The Endangered Species Act call for federal
agencies to undertake all possible means to conserve native species and
the ecosystems upon which they depend. The National Forest Management
Act calls for maintaining the diversity of plant and animal communities
to meet multiple use objectives, which in the regulations implementing
the Act have been stated as providing habitat to maintain the viability
of native vertebrate species, and for the protection of streams and
watersheds. The Clean Water Act calls for protecting the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The Multiple
Use-Sustained Yield Act calls for ensuring that multiple use and
sustained yield does not impair the productivity of the land. The Clean
Air Act calls for protecting the Nation's air. Individually and
collectively, our environmental laws express a profound commitment to
the protection of native species and our air, water, and soil. While the
laws allow considerable discretion in their interpretation, their thrust
is clear.

Scientific results and common sense points out the necessity of
protecting our natural systems so they continue providing the benefits
that we seek. Lessons from all over the national forest system suggest
that we ignore the conservation of natural systems at our peril. As an
example, concerns over the effect that declining water clarity will have
on tourism in Lake Tahoe has led to an intensive and expensive effort to
reverse this trend. More generally, the cost of replacing the natural
watersheds that supply the municipal water for many communities has
caused them to become very protective of these lands. Once natural
systems are pushed to the edge, the cost of recovery can be come
astronomical, if at all possible, and the ability to apply the
experimentation of adaptive management is significantly contracted.

In summary, the Committee of Scientists recommends that ecological
sustainability provide a foundation for planning the management for
national forests and grasslands within which these lands contribute to
economic and social sustainability. This recommendation does not mean
that we should maximize the protection of native species and ecological
productivity to the exclusion of other uses. Rather, it means that
planning for the multiple use of national forests and grasslands should
operate within a baseline level of environmental protection for native
species and ecological productivity. Choices in management still exist
and the level of risk to take is a policy choice. We believe that this
approach lays the necessary foundation for the economic and social
components of sustainability: making contributions to strong, productive
economies and creating opportunities for enduring human communities.

*Conserving the habitat for native species and the productivity of
ecological systems is the heart of ecological sustainability*

The Committee believes that conserving native species and the
productivity of ecological systems is the surest path to maintaining
ecological sustainability. We suggest the use of two general approaches
in tandem to conserve these key elements of sustainability . First, we
suggest assessment of the characteristic composition, structure, and
processes of the area being studied. We call this the "ecological
integrity" of the area. The "historical range of variability" is often
used in this analysis as a first approximation to characteristic
conditions. Then the conditions that will be created under any
management scenario are compared to these characteristic conditions. The
more that these conditions differ from the characteristic conditions,
the higher the risk to native species and ecological productivity.

Second, we suggest focusing on the viability of native species
themselves. Because it is impossible to monitor the status of all
species and assess their viability, it is necessary to focus on a
subset. We propose the generic term "focal species" to allow a variety
of approaches for selecting the species to monitor and assess for
viability. The key characteristic of a focal species is that its status
and time trend provide insights into the functioning of the larger
ecological system. The habitat needs of the focal species are developed
and assessments are made of the habitat that will be needed for the
species to be considered "viable". A viable species, by the Committee's
definition, would be one with self-sustaining populations
well-distributed throughout the species range. Self-sustaining
populations, in turn, can be defined as those that are sufficiently
abundant and have sufficient diversity to display the array of life
history strategies and forms that will provide for their persistence and
adaptability in the planning area over time. The habitat that will be
created under any management scenario is compared to the habitat needed
for the viability of each selected focal species. The less adequate the
habitat for each species, the greater the risk to native species and
ecological productivity.

In many cases, of course, the national forests and grasslands are unable
to conserve native species and ecological productivity by themselves.
Other landowners and agencies often control key elements of the
ecosystems being analyzed. Thus, at most, the national forests and
grasslands can *contribute* to the achievement of ecological
sustainability in some cases.

*The approach, in concept, is similar to that in the existing
regulations. In implementation, it attempts to build the knowledge we
have gained over the last 15 years.*

This approach is similar to the existing regulations implementing the
National Forest Management Act. These regulations (1982) have an
extensive section on "Management Requirements" that calls for provision
of adequate habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native
vertebrate species, protection of streams and watersheds, and many other
conservation measures. These requirements were intended to provide a
framework (decision-space) that would set sideboards on management
planning, much like our call for ecological sustainability to be the
foundation of national forest stewardship.

In its details of implementation, however, the approach proposed by the
Committee on ecological sustainability differs somewhat from the
existing one, reflecting over 15 years of experience. We continue to
focus on habitat for native species as the core of ecological
sustainability, while broadening the focus from vertebrates to all
native species. At the same time, we recognize that ensuring the
viability of all native species, through individual analysis, is an
impossible task. Therefore, we suggest a three-pronged strategy: 1)
focusing on a set of selected \"focal\" species and their habitat needs,
2) maintaining, in a more general sense, conditions (called "ecological
integrity"), 3) monitoring the effectiveness of this approach in meeting
the goals of conserving native species and ecological productivity.

In addition, we place great emphasis on the development of
scientifically-credible conservation strategies for species and
ecosystems through a call to use the best available scientific
information. As discussed below, we rely on a four-part process to
insure that the best available science will be used : 1) scientific
involvement in selection of species of interest and development of
measures of species viability and ecological integrity and the
definition of key elements of conservation strategies, 2) independent
scientific review of proposed conservation strategies before plans are
published, 3) scientific involvement in designing monitoring protocols
and adaptive management, 4) a national scientific committee to advise
the Chief on scientific issues in assessment and planning.

This suggested approach to assessing the risks to ecological
sustainability under any suggested management scenario provides a
scientific framework for analysis and a starting point for planning the
management of the national forests and grasslands. It leaves undeveloped
many of the details of implementation. In fact, we argue below that
regional assessments should fill in these details with the significant
assistance of the scientific community. In many cases, detailed studies
of particular species and measures of ecological productivity do not
exist; rather, the assessments must be done by panels of experts using
best judgment.

*The Committee's recommendations provide a set of concepts for thinking
about and assessing ecological sustainability\--major public policy
issues about the emphasis on ecological sustainability remain to be
resolved in the policy process.*

Our work leaves unresolved the major public policy issues surrounding
the degree to emphasize the attainment of ecological sustainability in
the planning and management of the national forests and grasslands. On
the one hand, it might be argued that ecological sustainability would be
highest if humans did not exist. On the other hand, we do exist and the
charter of the national forests and grasslands calls for use by people
to satisfy their wants and needs\--conservative use, yes, but use
nevertheless. In addition, given the condition of the resource, active
management is needed in some cases to move the forests and rangelands
toward sustainability.

With use can come risk, and decisions about the acceptable risk of
extinction are value-based, not science-based decisions. Some of the
risk can be reduced by modeling use after natural processes and
moderating the level of use, but decisions about the acceptable level of
risk usually remain. They must be made through the political process.
Thus we can help provide the framework for analysis; we can not decide
what is "balance".

Members of the Committee worked on a regulation on ecological
sustainability that updated the current regulation for the scientific
developments of the last fifteen years. We have included it in the body
of our report as an example of how the concepts that we suggest
here\--focal species, ecological integrity, and the use of scientific
information\--could be integrated into the regulations implementing the
National Forest Management Act. It has become increasingly clear,
though, that crafting such a regulation pushes the Committee into policy
making and away from its role of providing scientific and technical
advice\--other versions of the regulation could be written that
encompass these principles but put in place different standards and
emphases. Therefore, we do not make this work a recommendation, but see
it as more of an illustration of one way in which regulations might be
written to encompass the ideas discussed here.

Contributing To Economic And Social Sustainability: Provide For A Wide
Variety Of Uses, Values, Products, And Services, And Enhance Society's
Capability To Make Sustainable Choices.

The national forests and grasslands have long provided for the multiple
uses --- outdoor recreation, forage, timber, wildlife and fish, water
use, and minerals --- of these lands on a permanent basis, following
Gifford Pinchot's dictates that the lands be devoted to "their most
productive use for the permanent good of the whole people . . . always
bearing in mind that the conservative use of these resources in no way
conflicts with their permanent value." Starting with the Organic Act
which focused on securing favorable conditions of water flows from these
lands and furnishing a continuous supply of timber for the citizens of
the United States, this mandate was broadened in the Multiple-Use
Sustained Yield Act to include outdoor recreation, range, timber,
watershed, wildlife, and fish.

*Assess the contributions of national forests and grasslands to society*

The land and resource planning process for national forest system lands
provides an important opportunity to better understand and define the
many connections between forests and rangelands and their associated
economies and communities. Because forests contribute in numerous
tangible and intangible ways to the spiritual, cultural, social, and
economic well-being and identity of many communities and individuals,
the planning process must actively consider and engage the different
cultures, communities and economies that give these contributions value.
It is not always possible to quantify or rank diverse uses and values in
order to determine such elusive concepts as highest and best use--- just
as it is impossible to identify, count, and value all plants and animals
in an ecological system. It is nonetheless essential that important uses
and values be recognized, assessed, and accommodated as practicable and
appropriate.

*Recognize the interdependence of forests, rangelands, and watersheds
with economies and communities*.

Many communities depend on the national forests and grasslands for much
of their economic, social, and cultural sustenance. Although the Forest
Service cannot be expected to single-handedly sustain existing economies
and communities, the National Forests and Grasslands nonetheless
contribute many values, services, outputs, and uses that allow economies
and communities to persist, prosper, and evolve according to their own
wills. This charge --- contributing to the well-being of people today
and tomorrow --- is at the heart of the Forest Service's role in
economic and social sustainability. In this role, planning must take
generous account of compelling local circumstances. This includes the
needs of ranching, farming, timber, and Indian communities, and the many
Hispanic communities in the Southwest who depend on the resources in
former Spanish and Mexican land grants. Within the context of
ecological, economic, and social sustainability, planning should
consider the needs, resilience, and vulnerability of economies and
communities in selecting long-term management strategies.

*Search for strategies and actions that provide for human use in ways
that contribute to long-term sustainability*

The national forests and grasslands should direct much of their planning
and implementation energies toward developing, applying, and rewarding
strategies and actions that enable the multiple uses to occur in ways
that promote long-term ecological, economic, and social sustainability.
Finding strategies and actions that contribute to long-term
sustainability, rather than working against it, is the surest way to
increase the predictability of these uses. As part of this effort,
planning searches for strategies that produce revenue from human use.

*Help develop realistic expectations though a broad-based understanding
of the vital interrelationship between human use and the sustainability
of forests, streams, and watersheds.*

By building upon a foundation grounded in sustainability, planning can
encourage realistic expectations about long-term uses, values, outputs
and services contributed by the National Forests to economies and
communities.

*Recognize the rights of American Indian Tribes.*

Indian tribes possess unique and important rights recognized by federal
treaties, statutes, and executive orders. The agency has a general trust
responsibility to federally recognized tribes and a duty to acknowledge
them as sovereign governments and to work with them on a
government-to-government basis. Depending on the circumstances of
particular tribes and national forests, such lands also may provide for
tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, access to sacred sites,
protection of graves and other archaeological sites, and watershed
protection for downstream Indian reservations, and fishing sites.

**Consider The Larger Landscape In Which The National Forests And
Grasslands Are Located To Understand Their Role In Achieving
Sustainability**

Past planning tended to look inward at what the forests can produce
rather than outward at the larger landscape and the special contribution
that the national forests and grasslands can make. Ideally, land and
resource planning integrates the broader geographic, political, and
social landscape with the potential contributions of the forests,
rangelands, watersheds, and grasslands. Achieving sustainability
depends, in part, upon the activities on other public, tribal, state and
private lands. Thus, the planning process must be outward looking with
the goal of understanding the broader landscape in which the national
forests and grasslands are located.

In every sector of the country, the Forest Service and the national
forests and grasslands are just one important agency and one important
land system among many important governmental and private entities and
land ownerships. Some of these agencies have statutory authority over
the national forests and grasslands. Other agencies, governments,
corporations, and citizens manage land in and around these areas. Still
others have a keen interest in the national forests and grasslands and
can affect the way the political process views Forest Service action.

Sustainability of watersheds and other natural areas in which national
forests and grasslands are located will inevitably depend upon
activities on nearby federal lands, tribal, and state lands, and private
lands and on the actions and attitudes of a wide variety of agencies,
governments and citizens. These landowners will vary in their abilities
as well as their interest in providing the mix of uses, products,
values, and services that people seek from forests and rangelands.
Planning, therefore, must be outward-looking with the goals of
understanding the broader landscape in which the national forests and
grasslands lie and achieving the highest values for management of these
lands within the context of how people, businesses, and governments will
conserve, regulate, and use the lands within and around the national
forests and grasslands.

*Recognize the special role that national forests and grasslands play in
regional landscapes.*

The national forests and grasslands often have special responsibilities
in the context of all ownerships. They will increasingly be called upon
to provide the backbone of regional conservation strategies to conserve
species and ecosystems. Also, they are counted upon to provide municipal
water and dispersed recreation for an increasingly developed and settled
landscape. In addition, in some areas, they are the only substantial
source of timber supplies.

On the one hand, our growing national and international population will
place demands on our natural resources to provide goods and services
including wood products for a multitude of uses. Without careful
planning to enable continued production of wood and other outputs from
the forests of the United States, our demands may be transferred to
other countries with uncertain environmental effects.

This planning will often call for national forests and grasslands to
provide the anchor of regional conservation strategies for protection of
species and ecosystems, thus contributing to a stable environment for
the production of timber and other products across all ownerships. This
strategy is intended to allow conservation of species and ecosystems
without undue requirements on nonfederal lands; thus enabling the
production of timber and other commodities from these lands. The
argument for this approach has three sources. First, in this country, we
have evolved, though law and policy, a strategy that the federal lands
should take the primary responsibility for protection of species and
ecosystems. Second, the federal lands often have the best remaining
habitats and ecological conditions. Third, they are inherently less
efficient in the production of timber and other products because of
their special planning processes to ensure protection of the
environment.

*Recognize the national and global implications of management.*

Planning should acknowledge how management of the national forests and
grasslands can contribute to ecological, economic, and social
sustainability on a national and international scale. As an example,
with the concern over climate change, the national forests and
grasslands should consider the effect that their management will have on
carbon sequestration and consider alternatives that increase the amount
of carbon stored.

Make Effective Use Of Scientific And Technical Analysis And Review

In the first round of land and resource plans under NFMA, scientists, by
and large, sat on the sidelines, as managers and inter-disciplinary
teams developed the plans using scientific results as best they could. A
series of lawsuits, and a growing realization of the important role of
science in planning, led the Forest Service and other federal agencies
to call for "scientifically credible conservation strategies" for
species and ecosystems. In addition, it has become increasingly clear
that a scientific framework is needed to understand how the national
forests and grasslands can contribute to economic and social
sustainability. Thus, we have suggested a number of roles for science
and scientists

in land and resource planning.

*Involve the scientific community in developing strategies for
protection of species and ecosystems*

We discuss the crucial role for "assessments" to provide the information
base for planning. As part of that effort, scientists would help
identify the focal species for analysis of species diversity and suggest
procedures for estimating the viability of these species in planning. In
addition, they would suggest measures of ecological integrity and
procedures for obtaining these measurements. Finally, they would suggest
important elements of conservation strategies to conserve species and
ecosystems for use in planning. Recent work in the northwest (FEMAT and
ICBEMP) illustrate this approach.

Establish independent reviews on the use of technical and scientific
information in planning and the consistency of management proposals with
current knowledge.

The credibility of the planning process rests in part on the routine
application of an "outside check" on the use of technical and scientific
information. These reviews can provide independent verification that
plans and their implementation are science-based. They can highlight and
reward creative approaches to the challenging issues faced in the
management of the national forests and grasslands. The knowledge of an
evaluation at the end of the planning process should, by its very
presence, encourage collaboration between managers, specialists, and
scientists as the plans are developed. There should be an evaluation of
the use of scientific and technical information in "large-landscape
planning", i.e., an evaluation of the consistency of strategic planning
and plans with scientific and technical understanding. An example is the
"science consistency" check recently pioneered in the Tongass National
Forest Land Management Plan (Everest et al., 1997) ---a technique that
evaluates whether the information transferred from scientists to policy
makers and planners was understood and used appropriately.

*Involve the scientific community in designing effectiveness-monitoring
procedures and the experiments needed under adaptive management.*

Monitoring is a key component of science-based planning. Yet, there are
few standard procedures to draw on for designing
effectiveness-monitoring procedures for the millions of acres in a
strategic plan. This deficiency especially holds true with the limited
funds available for such work. Selecting an efficient, yet dependable,
set of measures will require scientific involvement.

*Establish a national science and technology advisory board*

A national science and technology advisory board could help
science-based planning become a reality on the national forests. This
board would provide highly qualified and independent advice to the
Forest Service to assure that the most current and complete scientific
and technical knowledge is used as the basis of land and resource
management.

*Develop new institutions in Forest Service Research with the objective
of assisting assessment and planning*.

The Forest Service is blessed with its own research organization---one
of the finest natural resource research organizations in the world.
Forest Service Research has fought for and achieved a mission that
emphasizes scholarly work publishable in peer-reviewed journals and
allows considerable independence from the immediate needs of the
National Forest System. Although making science-based planning work will
require efforts both inside and outside the federal government, we have
reached one inescapable conclusion about the key to its success:
science-based planning can succeed only if there is a strong, deep, and
sustained commitment to it from Forest Service Research. Forest Service
Research must shoulder major responsibilities for the contribution of
science and scientists to land and resource planning. Although this
effort may be assisted by scientists in other federal agencies and
outside the federal government, Forest Service Research must form its
core. This effort will require an expanded mission for this branch of
the Forest Service and for new institutions and funding to make it work;
otherwise, the shift of resources to assist planning will undercut the
major research mission of the organization.

*Develop new institutions in the National Forest System to utilize
scientific results and principles*

While Forest Service Research has an important and central role to
fulfill in enhancing science-based planning, it cannot and should not
shoulder this responsibility alone. Care must be taken to ensure the
ongoing credibility of Forest Service Research and maintain its solid
foundation of basic research. The National Forest System technical staff
must adopt a more central role, as interface between policy-makers and
the research community, and between policy-makers and managers, on
issues bearing on the scientific basis for decision-making. While Forest
Service Research can, for example, help create and evaluate
science-based protocols for monitoring or assessments, help develop the
scientific basis for creating, evaluating, and modifying standards and
guides, develop science-based frameworks, and provide or secure
independent review of the scientific foundation of plans, National
Forest System technical staff should bear responsibility for assisting,
enabling and ensuring managers' ability to apply this guidance to their
day-to-day management decisions.

**Management Flexibility is Needed At The Local Level\--Ensure
Accountability With Independent Project Review**

Since planning is a creative, educative and learning process, effective
problem solving at the level of the "site-specific" small landscape
depends on allowing flexibility to local managers to recognize and work
within local conditions in achieving the desired conditions of the
landscape. This approach rests on utilizing the creative powers of
national forest managers and the collaborative group assisting the
mangers in planning for the management of these complex systems. It
relies on this discretion to improve the reliability and effectiveness
of broad policies at the local level.

Part and parcel with this discretion is the need for independent
evaluation of how well these site-specific implementation plans achieve
the strategic goals, including highlighting creative solutions and
innovative approaches. Without the independent evaluation of the
specific projects and their implementation, it is difficult to justify
flexibility at the local level. Issues of trust, the ability of local
managers to develop local actions to address strategic goals and the
success of implementation all increase as the amount of discretion
increase. Yet the key to successful implementation is to harness the
creative talents of national forest managers and interested members of
businesses, communities, tribes, state and local governments and the
public. Thus, there is a need for an evaluation of the site-specific
landscape plans and their implementation. The difficulty for
organizations to engage in self-critique argues for an independent
assessment. The interagency PACFISH reviews could serve as a model for
this effort, assuming that the interagency committee's assignment was
broadened to consider all the values recognized in the plans.

**Collaborative Planning for Sustainability**

(Introduction to different parts of planning\--collaboration,
assessments, planning and decisions, implementation, budgeting,
monitoring)

.

Engage The American People In The Stewardship Of Their National Forests
And Grasslands.

The national forests and grasslands belong to the American people. For
these truly to be the "people's lands," the people must understand the
lands' condition, potential, limitations, and niche in resource
conservation in this country and must be willing to help achieve
sustainability. Just as the Forest Service can help the American people
learn about the limits and capabilities of the national forests and
grasslands, so too must the managers be educated by the unique
knowledge, advice, and values of the American people. Citizens can
provide a wide array of services, ranging from volunteer work on trail
crews to participating in collaborative efforts aimed at resolving
disputes over specific projects. The national forests and grasslands
should draw on this knowledge, wisdom, and energy by building
relationships, dialogues, and partnerships with the groups and
individuals who wish to have a role in setting the future course for
these lands and in implementing these decisions.

*Encourage extensive, collaborative citizen participation.*

Land and resource planning must provide mechanisms for broad-based,
vigorous, and ongoing opportunities for open public dialogue. These
dialogues should be open to any person, conducted in nontechnical terms
readily understandable to the general public, and structured in a manner
that recognizes and accommodates differing schedules, capabilities, and
interests. The participation of citizens should be encouraged from the
beginning and be maintained throughout the planning process, including
roles in assessments, issue-identification, implementation and
monitoring.

*Test the effectiveness of formal advisory boards.*

The Forest Service should utilize advisory boards as one component of
collaborative planning. These boards can provide an immediate,
legitimate, representative structure within which public dialogue can
occur. The Committee recommends that the Forest Service test advisory
boards on particular national forests and grasslands across the nation,
learn from this experience, and then decide whether, and in what form,
they would be most useful.

*Make plans understandable to the American people.*

A standard rule of public participation is that people find it difficult
to support what they do not understand. Further, few people have time
for indepth analysis. With that in mind, the Committee conducted a
survey of Regional Offices and Forest Supervisors. We asked the
following question: Could you send us a simple, straightforward
explanation of your plans for the lands you administer? Apparently few
such explanations exist. None for the Northwest Forest Plan for Federal
Forests, despite its importance and the millions spent on it. Few for
the land management plans now in effect across the nation. None that
give an image of the future landscape that will be achieved under the
plan. Lots of thick obscure documents useful in court cases, but few if
any explanations for the common man or for new Forest Service employees.
We believe that for the Forest Service to regain public support for its
policies and management, it must make a far greater effort to explain
these policies to the people whose lands these are.

*Build upon the human resources in local communities.*

Just as local communities depend on the national forests and grasslands,
so too does the condition of many forests, rangelands, and watersheds
depend, in turn, on communities. Many restoration actions are needed on
these lands, including programs to improve riparian conditions, reduce
fuel loads, and rebuild and decommission roads. These efforts will
require entrepreneurs and a trained workforce. The surrounding
communities can help provide these services.

*Maintain the terms of the public controversy.*

There is a tendency in planning to eliminate controversy in defining the
issues to be analyzed. The planning process should create an open forum
for public and organizational inquiry, in which issues of key public
concern are deliberated, analyzed, and questions defined, so that all
can actively work on developing solutions to them. For this to occur,
the public must define the issues, and those definitions must illuminate
the terms of the controversy. A critical feature of the issue-definition
process is for everyone to understand the reasons for controversy among
the diverse set of interests and perspectives. In sum, creating open
forums for discussion of important public issues is the essence of
public planning. Recent examples of planning that retains the terms of
controversy and creates a forum for public discussion include the
Manestee-Huron.

*Build stewardship capacity*

The planning process must enable citizens, as well as other agencies and
organizations, to become stewards of the land, not merely its clients
and customers. Collaboration links individuals and organizations into
new relationships that can both contribute to defining and integrating
goals for the National Forest System and provide some of the capacity to
carry them out. By building collaborative relationships, the planning
process will build implementation capacity by defining problems in ways
that make them everyone's responsibility.

*Recognize that planning and management of these public lands proceeds
in the face of legitimate, but often divergent, interests.*

The Committee's recommendations will not eliminate all conflict over
management of the national forests and grasslands. While it may be
unreasonable to expect consensus on particular management decisions on
these lands, there is a clear national consensus on the importance of
sustaining the resources and their contribution to the social and
economic welfare of the nation. Our report rests on this national
interest in sustainability, and allows the planning process to work
toward regional and local management strategies reflecting areas of
agreement and issues of continuing conflict. Our strong reliance upon
external review stems from our recognition that conflicts will
necessarily remain and can only be addressed through continuing
opportunities for public and agency dialogue and learning.

Utilize Assessments to Develop a Credible Foundation of Information for
Planning

In the past, the analysis of ecological and social conditions and trends
was done, to one degree or another, as part of planning. We believe that
assessments have such an important role in providing a credible
information base for policy planning and decision making that they
should be organized as a separate task. Assessments are not decisions
and should not be made to function under the NEPA processes associated
with planning. Rather, assessments provide the foundation of information
from which policies, strategies and decisions can be built, evaluated
and changed. Recognizing assessment as a task separate from planning
will enable more focus on assessing conditions, trends, problems, and
risks instead of on the development of planning alternatives.

*Undertake a joint public-scientific inquiry that builds a knowledge
base for planning and also builds institutions and relationships*

The way information is developed and synthesized and by whom, is as
important as the content. Ideally, assessments are organized as a joint
inquiry undertaken by scientists and other knowledgeable people and
involving the federal agencies, other governments, and the public. Based
on our analysis of various current assessment processes, we think that
assessments can have a number of functions: identifying issues of
special importance; creating forums for joint learning between
scientists, managers, and the public; improving inventories; encouraging
landscape-level thinking that transcends national forest and agency
boundaries; building cohesion among different levels of the Forest
Service and between the Forest Service and other agencies; and providing
a context for planning. For participants, assessments also help develop
leadership abilities and provide a crash course in adaptive management.
The Southern Application Assessment is an example.

Assessments must also provide the context for proposing ways to achieve
long-term goals of sustainability\--identifying the elements of needed
conservation strategies and scientifically credible procedures for
evaluating ecological, economic, and social sustainability. The analysis
of sustainability will require a critical mass of scientists, working
independently, but reporting periodically to a broader group to enable
critique, discussion, and joint learning. An example of this approach is
the recent work on aquatic ecosystems in the Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project.

We envision two primary scales of assessments. Assessments over large
areas ("bioregions"), such as the Sierra Nevada or the spotted owl
region, will generally be needed to provide the context for landscape
planning. Watershed assessments at the more local level will be needed
to help translate plans for large landscapes into action. Nearly half of
the National Forest System lands have a recent bioregional assessment of
some form.

In Planning, Recognize the Need to Make Different Decisions at Different
Levels

*Develop overall guidance on sustainability for "bioregions"*

Special focus on regional guidance on scientifically credible strategies
for conservation of wide-ranging species and large ecosystems. In the
past, regional plans often fell short in their guidance on ecological
sustainability. National Forests, as a result, were left without a firm
policy foundation on which to build their plans, and, when challenged,
these plans often could not withstand judicial review. Significant
effort in the future in bioregional planning must be placed on
constructing scientifically-based strategies for the conservation of
species and ecosystems. Recent examples of successful efforts to
construct these strategies include late-successional species and
ecosystems and salmon stocks in the Northwest (FEMAT), red cockaded
woodpecker (south), goshawk (southwest), and the multi-species
strategies developed as part of the Tongass land and Resource Management
Plan (Alaska). The Congressional language in the 1998 budget bill
calling for the development of regional strategies for fish, wildlife,
and forest health in the Columbia Basin is also an example of this
approach.

In addition, regional guidance may be needed on economic and social
sustainability. This guidance can highlight special roles of the
national forests and grasslands in contributing to economic and social
sustainability in the region. It also can direct planning to consider
the differing resiliency and vulnerability of communities across the
region.

*Undertake strategic planning of large landscapes within regions*

A second level, smaller in geographic scope although still perhaps
covering millions of acres, at which the long-term strategic policies
and decisions are developed that consider the full range of goals,
multiple uses, and public issues of concern in the area. We believe this
large landscape planning should focus on desired future conditions and
outcomes and on the pathway to achieve these desired states. In the
past, land and resource planning often focused on the relatively
short-term issues of land allocation and timber harvest levels. Although
these are still important issues, we believe that, consistent with the
emphasis on ecological, economic, and social sustainability, strategic
planning should emphasize the development of desired long-term landscape
conditions and outcomes that will provide this sustainability. Current
attempts at this " large landscape" planning include the coordinated
efforts on plan revision in the southern Appalachians, three southern
Idaho national forests, and the national forests of the Sierra Nevada.

*Conduct operational planning of small landscapes*

A "small landscape" level helps identify where the actions needed to
carry out the long-term strategic goals and policies are developed
within the context of the particular place. The need to consider
connected actions and cumulative effects, and to enable the public to
see the geographic context within which the actions will occur, argues
for an approach to project planning that considers a larger geographic
area than is usually covered by a single project. There will often be
the need to evaluate individual, controversial projects separately, but
the cumulative effects of the project must be analyzed in the context of
the small landscape management plan. Based upon Adaptive Management,
this level has a continuous cycle of activity, evaluation and review,
adaptation and change. Current examples are sometimes called
"site-specific" landscape plans. and following this experience, we
anticipate that small-landscape plans will cover from 10,000 to 100,000
acres.

**The Role of the Integrated Land and Resource Plan: An Accumulation of
Planning Decisions at all Levels and an Administrative Vehicle for Plan
Implementation**

The NFMA calls for development of an integrated land and resource plan
for each unit of the National Forest System. How does that fit with this
proposal? In our approach the integrated land and resource plan for each
administrative unit of the National Forest System is the repository of
the policies, strategic directions, implementing decisions, adaptive
management plans made at all levels of the planning and decision
process. As the foundation of administrative policy and guidance, it
includes the budget and staffing needs for implementation as well as the
procedures and timing of monitoring and review. It includes monitoring
processes, as well as ongoing results and subsequent changes in both
strategic and implementation decisions.

As critiques of past "forest planning" acknowledge and our analysis
confirms, the use of administrative units as the planning units, often
caused large-scale ecological, economic, and social processes to be
neglected or resulted in inconsistent decisions by adjacent
administrative units. Thus, we suggest a planning hierarchy above whose
geographic extent at the different levels would only coincidentally be
the boundaries of a particular national forest or grassland.

The physical location of the planning decisions at all levels, though,
rests at the administrative unit, because an integrated land and
resource management plan must also include the budgetary and staffing
plans for carrying out the proposed policies and activities. Thus, the
Plan is a "loose leaf notebook" that contains all of the policy
direction, strategies and implementation proposals from decisions made
at all levels of the planning process. It must also contain the
monitoring methodologies and the evaluation results. The process of
"plan amendment" is, then, a way of incorporating the dynamic nature of
decisions in an adaptive management approach.

Integrate Budget Realities into Planning

Past "forest plans" developed both the goals for management and a set of
actions (such as timber harvest, road construction, trail building,
wildlife habitat improvement, campground maintenance) for the decade to
achieve those goals. These actions were generally developed without
limiting budget needs to current experience. Rather the plans were
developed to help define the budget that would be needed, based on
conclusions reached by the Forest Service, after much analysis and
public involvement. This approach often led to disappointment during
plan implementation, as Congress appropriated less money than envisioned
and targeted the funds it did allocate to a different mix of actions and
outputs than called for in the plans.

*Strategic plans set long-term goals; budgets affect the rate of
progress to the goals*

For planning to be meaningful, it needs to bear a relationship to the
current and likely future budget situation. To achieve this there must
be some relationship between the plan and the budget available to
undertake the plan. As outlined above, strategic planning should
concentrate on setting the long-term goals and the associated desired
future conditions and make a first estimate of the pathway (set of
actions needed/conditions expected along the way) over time to achieve
these desired future conditions. The estimated rate of attainment of
desired conditions should be keyed to expected budgets, along with
analysis of how increased or decreased budgets will affect the rate of
progress. The details of actions to achieve progress toward these goals,
however, should be left to implementation planning. As part of strategic
planning, the budget needs of maintaining the desired future condition
should be examined; if they appear unrealistic, less expensive desired
future conditions should be considered.

The actions outlined in the small landscape management decisions,
updated on a yearly-basis, should be the basis for the budget requests.
Budget shortfalls will affect the actions taken and the rate of progress
toward goals; they do not automatically trigger a revision in the
strategic plan. If it becomes clear over time that Congress is unlikely
to fund accomplishment of the management goals, then the large
landscape, strategies and policies may need revision. During revision, a
comparison should be made between the expected and actual budgets in the
past so that future strategies are based on realistic budget
expectations.

*Public participation in planning will need to extend to the annual
budgeting process*

Land and resource planning and the budgeting to fund the plans operate
under two different processes, with planning largely an administrative
process and budgeting largely a Congressional process. It is important
that people understand that plan implementation depends on funding from
another political process and that budgeting is part of plan
implementation. Without such an appreciation, people may have
unrealistic expectations about what can be accomplished through land and
resource planning.

**(SECTION ON MONITORING/ADAPTIVE MGT NEEDED NEEDED)**

**Key Elements in the Collaborative Planning Process**

Make "Desired Future Conditions", And The Outcomes Associated With Them,
The Central Reference Points For Planning And Management

Organize planning around defining a collective vision of the desired
future considering the larger landscape in which the national forests
and grasslands sit.

Developing a collective vision of future landscape conditions, and the
uses, products, values, and services that will be provided by these
conditions, is our best hope for a "coming together" of the people and
groups that care about the national forests and grasslands. Pictures,
maps, and computer imagery of future conditions will help people
visualize what the future landscapes look like.

Establishing long-term goals is the most constructive place to start in
collaborative planning, and provides an essential guide for management.
Visualization of the future landscape through pictures and computer
simulations will be a crucial element in this work. Using information on
current conditions, from the bioregional assessments and elsewhere, the
large landscape strategies should build a pathway from the current state
to the desired future state that includes an estimate of actions and
budgets that will be needed.

Establish pathways to the desired future conditions and outcomes, and
orient performance measures, monitoring and budgeting to making progress
along those pathways.

Planning should estimate a schedule of management actions needed to
reach desired future conditions and outcomes along with the intermediate
conditions and outcomes expected along the way. The correspondence
between management action and expected results should become the
performance measures for achievement of strategic goals. Measurement of
performance would be accomplished through 1) comparing, on an annual,
basis, the expected treatment outcomes to actual treatment results, and
2) comparing every five to ten years, the rate and degree of movement
towards the desired future conditions and outcomes that are expected.
Either of those measures might have three possible outcomes: 1)
concluding that management actions are moving the landscape toward the
desired future conditions and outcomes; 2) concluding that treatments
must be adjusted to more efficiently achieve those conditions; (3)
reevaluating the possibility of the desired future conditions in light
of the potential of the landscape to achieve them.

Budgeting by amount and type of actions needed, rather than volume
harvested or some other output measure, will ensure that the needed
treatments occur. Currently, there is the understandable tendency to
tackle the easy treatments to get the stated volume; accountability by
type of treatment will help reduce that.

The expected conditions and outcomes following a specific management
action should guide the design of the monitoring program. The degree to
which outcomes correspond to expectation will provide a key piece of
information about progress toward the desired future condition.

**Keep Decisions Close To The Planning Area.**

Currently, the Chief is responsible for regional plans and the Regional
Forester is responsible for National Forest System plans. This approach
inhibits change and adaptation both at both planning levels. We believe
that the Regional Foresters should be responsible for bioregional policy
guidance and that the Forest Supervisors should be responsible for
strategic, large-landscape planning. Forest Supervisors should work
closely with District Rangers in developing the small-landscape,
implementation plans. Forest Supervisors are responsible for ensuring
that an integrated land and resource management plan is up-to-date and
reflects what has happened in the area as well as what actions are
anticipated over the planning horizon.

**Select Geographic Areas For Assessment And Planning That Capture
Ecological, Economic, and Social Effects**

In the past, planning boundaries were generally based on
political/social boundaries---states, national forests or grasslands,
timber sale boundaries. Over the last 20 years, it has been increasingly
recognized that assessing and planning for sustainability must consider
the ecological, economic, and social implications of the analysis and
planning units chosen, be they administrative units, river basins, or
mountain basins. Using boundaries meaningful for ecological, economic,
and social processes will enable not only the development of
comprehensive plans for the conservation of species and ecosystems, but
also the ability to measure the cumulative effects of current and future
management actions. Examples are the bioregions defined by the range of
the northern spotted owl, the watershed formed by the Columbia River,
and the vegetative/watershed boundary for the Southern Appalachian
Assessment. Rarely, however, will a single boundary be sufficient for
the assessment of sustainability---rather different boundaries will be
needed for different species and ecosystems in the assessment and
economic and social processes.

Planning at the large- and small-landscape levels consider the
ecological, economic, and social significance of the planning boundaries
chosen. Large-landscape planning might focus on a geographic area that
includes a single national forest, a cluster of national forests, or
pieces of one or more national forests. Examples would be the Grande
Ronde drainage within the Columbia River drainage, the Lake Tahoe
watershed in California, the collection of watersheds containing the
three southern Idaho national forests, or the northern, central, and
southern parts of the Sierra Nevada. Small-landscape implementation
plans would cover areas large enough to provide a context for action and
to measure cumulative effects, but small enough to enable site-specific
analysis of proposed actions. They also should have some meaning to
people as a whole. Examples are the Little Applegate River on the Rogue
River National Forest, the Seven Buttes area of the Deschutes National
Forest, and the Chattanooga Watershed Conservation Plan in the
Southeast.

**Address All Federal Lands Within The Area And Working, To The Degree
Feasible, With All Affected Federal Agencies.**

In the past, "forest planning" tended to go its own way. We believe that
effective assessment and planning for our federal lands requires a
coordinated approach across affected federal agencies. Federal agencies
have made strides in improving their coordination in recent years, such
as the interagency development of the Northwest Forest Plan. Still much
work needs to be done.

The Committee of Scientists has repeatedly heard that state, tribal,
private groups, and the public are overwhelmed by the multitude and
complexity of federal land and resource planning processes. Coordinating
the federal planning processes, especially where there are adjacent
federal managers within a regional landscape, would help solve this
problem.

Harmonizing and coordinating the different statutory priorities,
geographic areas of consideration, and implementation time frames of the
various federal agencies is no small task, but the potential benefits
are enormous. Integrating and coordinating these separate planning
processes is essential to developing integrated strategies for
ecological and social sustainability and for adapting these strategies
to changed conditions over time.

Despite differences among agency programs, the principles and
recommendations set out in this report have broad application among the
various federal agencies responsible for management or regulation of
natural resources. Integrated federal planning will not magically solve
difficult scientific and social issues, but it should enhance public
understanding and confidence in the various federal planning and
regulatory programs. It should also provide the public with a clearer
picture of desired future conditions for entire landscapes, from
watersheds to river basins and ease collaboration with state and tribal
governments, groups, and the public can become more efficient and
effective.

It must be said, though, that the Forest Service cannot make coordinated
federal planning happen by itself. Other federal agencies must want it
too.

**Move Toward Integrated Administration Of Jurisdictionally Divided
Areas**.

National Forests have an important role to play in organizing budgets
and staffing needs for proposed activities, measuring performance, and
monitoring results. Their land and resource plans provide a framework
for integrative administration of a National Forest, within the context
of other federal agencies and jurisdictions, state and local
governments, tribes, local associations and other landowners. We rely
upon this administrative capacity of the National Forest System, but
suggest a move toward an organizational structure keyed to the
boundaries of the large-landscape planning processes in some places.
Without such a change, the potential for inconsistent, wasteful actions
within the large-landscape areas is high. In addition, designating a
large-landscape area, drawn on ecological boundaries, as the
administrative unit should make it easier to communicate the goals of
management to the public. A current example of such a unit is the Lake
Tahoe Basin, which is the watershed of Lake Tahoe that was previously
administered by four National Forests in two bioregions.

**Utilize The NEPA Review Process As An Opportunity To Coordinate Across
Agencies And Jurisdictional Responsibilities In The Analysis Of Proposed
Decisions.**

Agency processes for planning, decision-making, and appeals tend to
assume a single-agency approach. As a result, agency processes are
generally inwardly focused and sometimes offer little up-front
opportunity for broader involvement in the assessment, planning, and
decisional processes. NEPA is intended as a process to disclose the
evidence and reasoning used in making commitments of federal resources
or budgets. Because it is a process that applies to all federal
agencies, it is an opportunity for integrating and coordinating
single-agency processes. Ideally, a more unified federal approach to
planning and assessment will evolve over time, given the likelihood that
the need for coordination will increase with greater attention to
sustainability. In the meantime, however, the NEPA process was intended
as a mechanism to enhance working relationships across agencies in the
process of developing their plans and activities.

**Utilize Principles Of Efficiency Analysis In Planning, Plans, And
Management**

The National Forests should be efficient in their management, within the
context of meeting their other goals. This mandate does not require the
Forest Service to manage the public lands to maximize monetary return.
Rather, it requires that planning methodologies do two things: 1) reduce
the trade-offs in achieving different goals, and 2) demonstrate
economical use of public funds by attempting to provide each alternative
combination of conditions and outputs they consider, at least cost.

Some people may recoil from pursuit of "efficiency" in resource
analysis, in part, because they feel that it serves only to justify
commodity production from forests. We would argue that efficiency
analysis, broadly interpreted to address non-market as well as market
outputs, serves an important function in planning the management of
forests. Whenever multiple goals are sought, efficiency analysis can
reduce the conflicts that may arise or exist. Also, with the greater
scrutiny that budgets for will receive in the future, it will become
increasingly important that managers be able to demonstrate that they
are not "wasting" resources. Efficiency analysis enables managers to
make this demonstration.

*With and without analysis*

In the development of these large landscape plans, an analysis of the
management situation should be done early in the process. It should
cover the historical development of landscape conditions and outcomes
along with current problems. This analysis should realistically portray
likely landscape conditions and outcomes over time without active
management, including the effect of natural disturbance. This analysis
then becomes the basis for discussing the need for, and type of, actions
that will be needed to move landscape conditions and outcomes toward the
desired states.

**Identify the Suitability of Land for Resource Management as an Outcome
of Planning**

Section 6(g) is the heart of the National Forest Management Act. It is
the section that outlines the requirements that planning must meet.
These requirements include maintaining diversity of plant and animal
communities to meet multiple-use objectives, ensuring that timber will
be harvested only where watersheds will not be irreversibly damaged, and
ensuring that clearcutting will be used only where it is the "optimum
method." The very first requirement mentioned in Section 6 (g) is that
guidelines are to be developed which ". . . require identification of
the suitability of lands for resource management." This section was
eclipsed by Section 6 (k) in the previous regulations, which required
the identification of lands not suited for timber production.

*The suitability of land for resource management is an outcome of the
planning process*

We view the classification of lands relative to their suitability for
different kinds of resource management as an outcome of planning for
large landscapes. It is the result of the land classifications needed to
support the decisions made at all different levels and incorporated into
the land and resource management plan. Furthermore, we place the
identification of lands not suited for timber production as a subset of
the identification of the suitability of lands for different types of
resource management.

This approach, then, sees the suitability of lands for resource
management as a result of the planning process. Out of this planning
process should come the classification (zoning) of lands by suitable
types of resource management. Types of resource management include
timber production, range, and different kinds of recreation. Some lands
might be classified as suitable for all types of management; others
might only be suitable for one type. Site-specific analysis might be
necessary to refine the estimates of where activities could actually
occur and the form they could take.

This analysis would lead to the following designations for each land
area on the national forests and grasslands for each type of resource
management considered:

A\) resource management prohibited

B\) resource management permitted with the understanding that these
estimates might be refined in more site-specific planning.

The most complicated portion of this analysis addresses resource
management involving timber harvest and timber production, where timber
production is defined as a long-term commitment to produce commercial
timber volume. NFMA states "*Sec. 6 (k) In developing land management
plans pursuant to this Act, the Secretary shall identify lands within
the management area which are not suited for timber production,
considering physical, economic, and other pertinent factors to the
extent feasible, as determined by the Secretary, and shall assure that,
except for salvage sales or sales necessitated to protect other
multiple-use values, no timber harvesting shall occur on these lands for
a period of 10 years.*

Because timber harvest under this clause can occur for the "protection
of other multiple use values" where the forest is not suitable for
timber production, lands suitable for resource management involving
timber harvest need two sub-categories: A) timber harvest is prohibited

B\) timber harvest is permitted

> 1\) for protection of other multiple use values, but timber production
> is not a goal
>
> 2\) timber production is one of the goals.

Identifying the lands \..."not suited for timber production considering
physical, economic, and other pertinent factors to the extent
feasible\..." has perplexed analysts since passage of NFMA. Especially
the economic test for suitability has been difficult to apply for a
number of reasons. First, we can place a reliable dollar value on only a
portion of the values created or damaged during timber harvest. Markets
for endangered species and a scenic view are largely nonexistent.
Second, it is very difficult to value a particular stand, since its
value in different conditions depends on the entire landscape around it.

In addition, timber harvest can occur even where timber production is
not a goal to support other multiple uses. Since more and more national
forest land is falling into this category, the usefulness of a
suitability test to decide where timber production could occur, even if
possible to do, is waning.

As with the general discussion of the suitability of land for resource
management, we see the economic suitability of lands for timber
production as more of an outcome of the planning process than a driver.
While this can lead to abuse\--set the timber harvest target high enough
and all lands are suitable\--we don't feel these problems are solvable
by intricate analysis of revenues and costs. Rather they argue for the
scientifically credible, participatory planning process that we
recommend in the rest of this report.

Water and Timber\--A Traditional Focus of the Forest Service in
Achieving Sustainability

From the first management guidance for the national forests passed by
Congress in 1897 to the National Forest Management Act, water
(watersheds) and timber have been singled out for special legislative
attention. Thus we developed recommendations for these two forest
resources

*Key elements in a strategy for conserving and restoring watersheds*

Watershed protection has always been a central theme in national forest
law and policy. When Congress authorized the President to establish
forest reserves in the 1891 Creative Act, one major reason was to meet
the request of municipalities and irrigation districts for watershed
protection. In the 1897 Organic Act, the first listed purpose of the
forest reserves was "securing favorable conditions of water flows". The
Weeks Act of 1911, enabling the purchase of the headwaters of navigable
streams, was a watershed protection statute that led to the creation of
the national forests of the east. The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act
of 1960 listed watershed purposes as one of the multiple uses and,
taking the long view, provides for "the maintenance in perpetuity of a
high-level of regular or periodic output" of the multiple uses "without
impairment of the productivity of the land." The NFMA calls for
consideration and protection of water courses and watersheds in a number
of places. First, the NFMA identifies water as one of the multiple uses.
Second, it has numerous provisions about protection of water courses and
watersheds when timber harvest is considered. Other federal legislation,
most importantly the Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972 and as amended 1987),
also mandate the conservation of water resources, with the overall
purpose of the CWA being to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."

Given the importance of water and watersheds in the legislation
underlying creation and management of the national forests, the
Committee has articulated a strategy for conserving and restore
watersheds. The Committee suggests a six-part strategy: (1) Provide
conditions for the viability of native riparian and aquatic species. (2)
Maintain and restore watershed integrity, that is, maintain and restore
the natural composition, structure, and processes of the watershed
including the flow regimes. For degraded watersheds, improving their
integrity will require the re-establishment of aquatic functions and
related physical, chemical, and biological characteristics to within the
historical range of natural variability. (3) Recognize watersheds in
assessment and planning. (4) Develop an overall strategy for setting
priorities for restoration and use. A common saying within the watershed
community is to "save the best, restore the rest". From an ecological,
cultural, political, and economic perspective, it is almost always
easier to protect intact and functioning ecosystems than it is to
restore degraded ones. Thus, it is important that assessments classify
watersheds as to their ecological condition and integrity. Planning
should then use this information in deciding where special protection is
warranted and where land use and restoration activities should occur.
(5) Energize the people of the watershed to help. Collaborative
stewardship by all the landowners, along with state and local
governments and the public, will be needed for successful conservation
and restoration of these watersheds. Watershed councils can often
motivate and direct crucial voluntary conservation efforts. (6)Monitor
watershed condition over time as part of adaptive management.

*The role of timber harvest in achieving sustainability*

From the beginning, a major purpose of the national forests has been to
organize timber harvest and timber production to achieve sustainability.
The 1897 Organic Act called for the national forests to "furnish a
continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens
of the United States." The National Forest Management Act focused on
directing and controlling timber harvest and timber production on the
national forests. We have outlined below some of the key clauses in the
NFMA relative to timber harvest and timber production along with our
recommendations of how they might be interpreted to fit in with the
overall framework described in this report.

[Silvicultural aspects of the National Forest Management
Act]{.underline}

Silviculture is the process whereby humans tend, harvest, and
re-establish forest stands and landscapes. Silvicultural practices, such
as timber harvest and prescribed burning, can help meet stand-specific
objectives for species composition and forest structure and
landscape-level objectives for abundance, size, shape, and pattern of
patches of different stand conditions, in addition to aiding in the
attainment of a variety of goods and services. The National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) was most prescriptive in its sections on
silvicultural practices involving timber harvest. Yet whatever
regulations are written for the national forests and grasslands, it is
important that they allow flexibility in designing methods and systems
to create and maintain the species composition, stand structure, and
processes that are the foundation of ecological sustainability--- which,
in turn, sustain healthy economies and human communities.

[Regional assessments need to define the historical characteristics of
disturbances as a context for selecting silvicutural methods and
characteristics.]{.underline} In the report, we emphasize the need for
regional assessment to provide information on the characteristics of
stands and landscapes that historically occurred in the different forest
types, such as ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forests, and landscape
units, such as mountain ranges, watersheds, or the range of some
species. Analysis of the historical characteristics of disturbances
should be undertaken in regional assessments for each major forest type
and landscape unit within the region. The assessment should consider the
types of silvicultural systems potentially useful in the recreation of
these disturbance characteristics. Out of this analysis should come
minimum and maximum sizes of disturbances in different forest types and
landscapes and also information on the historical frequency, intensity,
and pattern of disturbances. This information would then be used, in
turn, to guide and limit the silvicultural approaches to achieving stand
and landscape objectives, including the selection of silvicultural
systems and restocking standards.

[When interpreting the "five year restocking clause", allow for natural
regeneration.]{.underline}

When managing for sustainability, silvicultural practices should strive
to emulate the effects of natural disturbance processes such as fire,
wind, insects, and disease on the forest. This approach applies at both
the stand and landscape levels. In general, silvicultural practices were
originally designed to achieve natural regeneration after harvest, as
the technology for planting stock (seedlings) had not yet developed. We
suggest that, for reasons of genetic diversity, natural regeneration and
the systems that provide it be considered specifically in the regulatory
process. One provision of NFMA states that the Forest Service should
"insure that timber will be harvested from National Forest System lands
only where . . . there is assurance that such lands can be adequately
restocked within five years after harvest". From an ecological
perspective, it will be important to consider natural regeneration for
the maintenance of genetic diversity. Interpreting the clause to mean
that sites "will be" restocked within five years of harvest, rather than
"could be" restocked, could have a chilling effect on the willingness of
managers to give natural regeneration a chance.

Consider, for example, shelterwoods on which natural regeneration of
trees has a very high probability of success, and the trees themselves
are considered valuable for maintaining genetic diversity. If the parent
trees on the site are not expected to produce good seed crops for
several years, artificial regeneration (planting seedlings) may be
necessary to ensure that the site is replanted within five years.
Artificial regeneration could become the norm and perhaps even the
default. As pointed out elsewhere, it is ironic, that well-meaning
policies designed to cure previous failings in forestry (regeneration
delays) have produced a legacy (high-yield stands with no range in age
and little species diversity) that is now under indictment. We should
not continue this trend by precluding natural regeneration though
regulations.

[Selecting the harvest method: let nature and your goals be your
guide.]{.underline} Another provision of NFMA calls for the FS to
"insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and
other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber will be
used as a cutting method on the National Forest System lands only where:
(i) for clearcutting, it has been determined to be the optimum method,
and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the
objectives and requirements of the relevant management plan."

With respect to clearcutting, the intent of this clause seems fairly
obvious: clearcutting should be used only where it can be demonstrated
to be the best method for meeting the objectives for the stand and
landscape, and that it certainly should not be the default method that
it was sometimes in the past. There are species and ecosystems for which
a convincing argument can be made for the "optimality" of clearcutting.
Such an argument could, in principle, be made for most species that
regenerate in essentially even-aged stands (e.g., red alder in the
Pacific Northwest, lodgepole pine in the Rockies, aspen in the Lake
States) after natural, catastrophic, stand-replacing disturbances. It
should be noted, though, that characteristics (size , shape, frequency,
pattern) of openings caused by these natural catastrophic
stand-replacing disturbances vary considerably among different species.

While clearcutting may be an obvious choice for the regeneration of such
pioneering species, clearcutting is not the only way that they can be
regenerated and managed. Suitable conditions for regeneration can almost
always be created with a range of alternative reproduction methods,
e.g., clearcutting-with-reserve-trees, a shelterwood, and even
large-group selection.

There is the additional requirement that cuts designed to regenerate an
even-aged stand of timber are to be used only when they, and presumably
the even-aged stand structures that result, meet explicit objectives of
the plan. This requirement provides a great deal of latitude, but seems
to suggest that even-aged stand management should not be the default
method and that alternatives should be seriously considered. In addition
to classic uneven-aged silviculture, non-traditional reserve-tree
silvicultural systems that can create and maintain a broad range of
stand structures might be considered. The choice of an appropriate
regeneration method and silvicultural system needs to be made within the
context of the ecology of the species involved and the management
objectives at both the stand and landscape scale. These evaluations
should draw upon the regional analysis of appropriate regeneration
methods and patch characteristics.

At times there have been attempts to list the situations under which
clearcutting will be considered. Such an approach is fraught with
difficulties because of the impossibility of predicting all the
different situations that might occur. We believe that cases where
managers would like to use clearcutting should be clearly justified as
the best regeneration method for that situation.

[Limiting the size of harvest blocks: consider both minimum and maximum
opening sizes based on the ecology of the species.]{.underline} At the
time NFMA was passed, there was concern and controversy over the large
clearcut squares that were appearing on the national forests. Setting
upper limits on clearcuts and other even-aged methods seemed a useful
way to address the problem at the time. Therefore a clause in NFMA calls
for maximum size limits for areas to be cut in one harvest operation.

In managing for sustainability, though, the limits can result in
detrimental, unintended effects. General implementation of this
provision could be a prescription for fragmentation of the forest into
patterns that have not been experienced historically though natural
disturbance. As forest managers have become interested in management
reflecting natural disturbance regimes, it has become less certain that
simply restricting the size of the patch created by even-aged harvest is
the best approach for determining the size of disturbance created
through harvest. To emulate natural disturbances, it may be important to
set minimum sizes as well as maximums, and to have objectives for the
overall pattern of disturbance on the broader landscape.

*Timber removals and sustained yield: fitting traditional concepts to
modern problems*

The National Forest Management Act specifies limitations on timber
removals as follows: The Secretary of Agriculture shall limit the sale
of timber from each national forest to a quantity equal to or less than
a quantity which can be removed on such a forest annually in perpetuity
on a sustained yield basis; Provided, That in order to meet overall
multiple-use objectives, the Secretary may establish an allowable sale
quantity for any decade which departs from the projected long-term
average sale quantity that would otherwise be established; Provided
further, that any such planned departure must be consistent with the
multiple-use management objectives of the land management plan. \....(b)
Nothing in subsection (a) of this section shall prohibit the Secretary
from salvage or sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are
substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or which
are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack. The Secretary may
either substitute such timber for timber that would otherwise be sold
under the plan or, if not feasible, sell such timber over and above plan
volume."

[The reasons for predictable, sustainable timber harvest levels change
over time, but the need is still there]{.underline}

In the past, this sustained-yield provision was seen as an all-purpose
safeguard of sustainability. The restriction on timber harvest to the
level that could be sustained in perpetuity would ensure that the forest
was not plundered. An even flow of timber was seen as ensuring economic
and social sustainability through contributing to community stability.
In recent years, though, the identification of sustainability with
sustained yield has wavered. We now look at species directly to assess
ecological sustainability. The difficulty of producing an even-flow
harvest level through time, for a multitude of reasons has lessened the
ability of sustain yield to contribute to "community stability". Also,
questions have been raised as to whether community stability is an
appropriate goal.

Still, there is the desire for predictability in timber harvest from a
number of quarters. Without some notion of the likely offerings, it is
improbable that investment will occur in processing facilities. Then the
national forests may be faced with situation in which the operators
needed to undertake needed stand treatments are not available. Just as
the timber industry need outputs from the national forests; the national
forests need a vibrant timber industry to help achieve long-term goals
for these lands. In addition, communities planning for their future
would like to have some confidence in the amount of timber that will be
coming off of nearby national forests.

[The more that timber harvest contributes to long-term sustainability,
the more predictable timber outputs will be.]{.underline}

To the degree that timber harvest works against
sustainability\--ecological, economic, or social\--it will be
unpredictable and difficult to achieve. Proposals to harvest old growth
trees where they are relatively scarce will almost always meet with
resistance. Proposals to temporarily raise timber harvests above
sustainable levels to address employment problems generally meet with
public dismay in the last planning process. Thinning understories to
reduce fuel and produce commercial volume, on the other hand, can meet
with acceptance and approval.

[The total timber output from a national forest will be of more
importance than the portion covered by the NFMA sustain-yield
provision]{.underline}

Under NFMA, timber harvest can occur for the "protection of other
multiple use values" where the forest has been judged not suitable for
timber production, lands suitable for timber harvest need two sub
categories: 1)timber harvest is allowed for protection of other multiple
use values, but timber production itself is not a goal and 2) timber
production is one of the goals, where timber production is the long-term
commitment to produce commercial timber volume. It appears likely that
an increasing amount of timber harvest in the future will come from
areas where timber production is not a goal (sub category 1)\--riparian
areas, wildlife areas and other special designations where timber
harvest is a tool to achieve the goals of the area, but where timber
production is not a goal. The Committee argues that this type of timber
harvest does not come under the timber removals section of NFMA. Reasons
for this conclusion include wording in the Conference Report on NFMA and
the difficulty in calculating long-term timber yield on areas not
designated for timber production. Also, the social difficulties of
placing any projected harvest under the "allowable sale quantity", with
resulting suspicion that these estimates will become targets, cannot be
overlooked.

Thus, some of the timber volume coming off the national forests will not
fall under the timber removal restrictions of Section 11. Increasingly,
in recent years, timber harvest has come from lands on which timber
removal is a by-product of achieving other goals rather than a goal
itself. In addition, an increasing proportion of the timber volume from
the national forests falls under the category of "salvage", which is not
restricted to the allowable sale level.

[In the future, planning, and budgeting, and monitoring should focus on
the kinds and amounts of expected actions and on the conditions and
outcomes they will produce on the landscape]{.underline}

Under the Committee's recommendations, forest management actions in the
future will be guided by a comparison of the existing condition to the
desired future condition. Where timber harvest is scheduled, these
actions should be stated in terms of the acres of treatment as a
prescription that focuses on the goals for treatment. The volume taken
is the result of applying the prescription. While aggregating the
expected volume will also be useful, planning, budgeting, and monitoring
should focus on the kinds and amounts of expected actions that the
conditions they produce.