Readers: here is a proposed summary of the Committee of Scientists
Report. It was used in the Conference Call on Jan 28, 1999. As with
previous drafts, it is subject to major revision. Norm Johnson

**SUMMARY**

**The Committee's Assignment: Suggest a Land and Resource Management
Planning Framework under Current Law and Policy that could last a
Generation**

In December 1997, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman convened an
interdisciplinary Committee of Scientists to review and evaluate the
Forest Service's land and resource management planning process and to
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, Under Secretary James Lyons
emphasized that he wanted the Committee to develop a conceptual
framework for land and resource planning that could last at least a
generation. Thus, the Under Secretary 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**

The Committee met in cities around the country, where we heard from
Forest Service employees, representatives of tribes, state and local
governments as well as related federal natural resource agencies, and
members of the public. Everyone shared their concerns and offered their
ideas about the current planning process as well as the current state of
the management of national forests and grasslands.

As the Committee learned about the latest innovations in the planning
process and emerging collaborative partnerships, it became clear that
people and teams in the Forest Service were rapidly developing the
elements of a new planning framework as they struggled to update and
revise their plans. Not a surprising development, since planners,
specialists, and mangers can't wait for a committee of scientists to
suggest a design for planning. Thus, the Committee discovered that in
the context of new information technologies, growing interest in
sustainability, increased civic involvement, and a new ethic of
collaboration among governments and agencies, innovation in planning
processes abounded on the national forests and grasslands across the
country.

Many of the approaches and improvements to planning suggested in this
report are based on innovative experiments across the country. The
Committee gleaned ideas from the critiques of planning performed by the
Forest Service and others, and from meetings and discussions across the
country with Forest Service employees and the public. The Committee
utilized this information in three ways. First, it helped us learn an
enormous amount about planning. Second, it enabled us to test the
validity and practicality of our own ideas based upon our experience and
knowledge. Finally, it provided examples of the elements of successful
planning, many of which are included in the report\--often in sidebars.

**Sustainability -- The Foundation of National Forest Stewardship**

The Committee recognizes that the concept of sustainability expresses a
common vision and a collective goal, along with standards for measuring
progress. In international agreements, sustainability is defined as
composed of interdependent components - social, economic, ecological.
These components are inextricably interrelated and apply everywhere to
all lands, waters, and people. In examining the history of the national
forests and grasslands, it is clear that the shift in management
policies based on concepts of "sustained yield" to those of
"sustainability" derives from this new terminology. In terms of resource
management, this shift is represented by a move away from resource
production techniques designed simply to ensure sustained commodity
flows over time. Instead, resource management now has a broadened focus
on ecological systems encompassing long-term social and economic
contributions and benefits along with the participation of people
(especially in rural communities), while maintaining the potential to
respond to evolving demands.

The essence of the concept of sustainability is the integration of
social, economic and ecological systems as a common vision. 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 managing biological and ecological systems as if separated from
their social and economic context. Sustainability also moves away from a
focus upon immediate economic values without concern for
intergenerational equity and the long-term productivity of the land. It
is a matter of history and common sense that sustainability must include
people and economic relationships in order that ecological systems
continue to support current and future generations.

As a standard for measuring progress, principles of sustainability and
criteria for measuring the extent to which ecological conditions and
societal actions meet them are being established in world-wide
agreements. These agreements and, thus, sustainability might well become
part of a global convention on forests. In reviewing the literature,
concepts related to sustainability include maintaining ecological
functions, structures, and biodiversity; adopting democratic processes
for decision making; developing adaptive management approaches; planning
based upon an integrated ecological, cultural and economic systems
including spiritual resources; ensuring intergenerational equity; and
recognizing the necessity of choice. These fundamental concepts are
common throughout the discussions of the application of sustainability.
From them, international agreements have defined criteria and indicators
for measuring progress and achievements. In addition, global coalitions
of private and non-governmental organizations have established processes
for certification of sustainable forests, whether they are in private or
public ownership.

The national forests and grasslands of the United States 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 provide many, diverse benefits to the American
people. Such benefits include: clean air and clean water, productive
soils, biological diversity, goods and services, employment
opportunities, community benefits, recreation, wilderness and
naturalness. They also provide intangible qualities such as beauty,
inspiration, and wonder.

Yet, these benefits depend upon the long-term sustainability of the
watersheds, forests, and rangelands if the public is to enjoy the
ecological, economic, and social values that they can provide.
Accordingly, based upon the statutory framework for the national forests
and grasslands, the first priority for management is to maintain and
restore the ecological sustainability of these watersheds, forests, and
rangelands for present and future generations. Building on a foundation
of ecological sustainability, the national forests and grasslands can
provide for the long-term a wide variety of uses, values, products, and
services that are important to many Americans.

For the national forests and grasslands, sustainability eloquently
expresses their central management tenet **--** society's use today does
not impair the functioning of ecological processes and the ability of
these natural resources to contribute to future generations and the
economies in the future.

Looking back across the century, a suite of laws calls for federal
agencies to pursue ecological sustainability---often in terms of
conservation of native species and ecological productivity. The Organic
Act of 1897 established the purposes of the forest reserves "to improve
and protect the forests within the reservation, or for the purpose of
securing favorable conditions of waterflows, and to furnish a continuous
supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United
States." This Act restricted the use of timber by declaring that "for
the purpose of preserving the living and growing timber and promoting
the younger growth on forest reservations, the Secretary ... , may cause
to be designated and appraised so much of the dead, matured, or large
growth of trees found upon such reservations as may be compatible with
the utilization of the forests thereon, and may sell for not less than
the appraised value in such quantities to each purchaser as he shall
prescribe, to be used in the State or Territory in which the reservation
may be situated, respectively, but not for export therefrom." (This
clause was repealed in 1976 when timber management authority was
authorized under the National Forest Management Act.) Concern with loss
of species led to the Lacey Act in 1900 to "aid in the restoration of
\[game birds and other wild\] birds in those parts of the United
States... where \[they\] have become scarce or extinct." By 1960, the
expanded conservation and management purposes of the Forest Service were
placed in statute by the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, which calls
for ensuring that various renewable surface resources are used in a
combination that will best meet the needs of the American people \--
multiple use \-- and with the maintenance in perpetuity of these
resources without impairment of the productivity of the land \--
sustained yield.

Following the signing of the National Environmental Policy Act on
January 1, 1970, federal responsibilities toward conservation of species
and ecosystems as well as the protection of environmental quality were
significantly strengthened. The Endangered Species Act requires all
federal agencies to "provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which
endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to
provide a program for the conservation of endangered species and
threatened species, ..." The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 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 viable populations of
existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species. NFMA also
requires the protection of soil, streams and watersheds, and the
regulations provide specific management guidelines for these resources.
The Clean Water Act calls for protecting the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters. The Clean Air Act calls for
protecting the Nation's air. Thus, individually and collectively, our
environmental laws express a profound commitment to the protection of
plant and animal 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 point out the necessity of
protecting our natural systems so they continue providing benefits to
society. Lessons from across the national forest system suggest that the
conservation of natural systems is ignored at their peril. As an
example, concerns over the effect that declining water clarity will have
on tourism in Lake Tahoe have 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 increased protection of these lands. Once natural systems are
pushed to the edge, when recovery is possible, the costs can be
astronomical. The ability to apply the experimentation of adaptive
management is significantly compromised.

**Ecological Sustainability -- A Necessary Foundation for Stewardship**

The Committee of Scientists recognizes that ecological sustainability
provides a foundation upon which the management for national forests and
grasslands can contribute to economic and social sustainability. This
finding does not mean that the Forest Service is expected to maximize
the protection of plant and animal species and environmental protection
to the exclusion of other human values and uses. Rather, it means that
planning for the multiple use and sustained yield of the resources of
national forests and grasslands should operate within a baseline level
of ensuring the sustainability of ecological systems and associated
species. Choices in management still exist and the level of risk to take
is a policy choice. Nonetheless, it is clear that ecological
sustainability lays a necessary foundation for national forests and
grasslands to contribute to the economic and social components of
sustainability: making contributions to strong, productive economies and
creating opportunities for enduring human communities. However, the
human values, needs, and uses as well as the ecological conditions of
each locality will change over time. Therefore policy and management
must evolve according to natural dynamics and disturbances as well as
social events, economic change, and political values.

Ecological sustainability means maintaining the composition, structure,
and processes of a natural system. The National Forest Management Act
(NFMA) establishes the goals of maintaining species' diversity and
ecological productivity; goals expressed in terms of ecological
sustainability. That is, species diversity and productivity can be
preserved by maintaining the composition, structure, and processes
characteristic of an area.

Implementation of sustainability into plans for national forests and
grasslands is not a precise process; there are many unknowns and
potential pitfalls that are not under the control of resource managers.
Therefore, planning must acknowledge certain features of ecological
systems.

*Acknowledge the nonequilibrium nature of ecological system*

The dominant paradigm for ecological systems is that they are not in
equilibrium -- inherent dynamics are natural features of these systems.
For example, ecological systems are regularly subjected to episodic,
natural disturbances that shape their states. A part of this paradigm is
the concept that ecological systems are hierarchical structures, best
evaluated at a variety of spatial scales. Sustaining ecological
processes within the expected bounds of variation is the only way to
sustain ecological diversity and productivity for future generations.

*Acknowledge the significance of natural processes*

National forests and grasslands contain a variety of natural resources
that change over time and space. These changes include succession,
disturbance, changes in climate, loss of site productivity related to
land-use activities, the establishment and spread of non-native species,
and the loss of native species diversity. However, some of these
processes are natural, and anthropogenic disturbances need to be
considered in the light of natural dynamics. Thus, after particular land
uses, a simple return to more natural conditions is often difficult or,
in fact, impossible, in the near term. Acknowledging natural processes
means that these factors need to be considered in defining desired
future conditions as well as developing strategies for conservation and
management actions to implement them. The concept of "historical ranges
of natural variability" needs to be considered in terms of how human use
can affect ecological systems.

*Acknowledge uncertainty and inherent variability of ecological systems*

Uncertainty arises from incomplete understanding of how ecological
systems work and from insufficient information. However, even if these
sources of uncertainty could be removed through more research and better
theory, ecological systems are inherently variable. Thus, variability is
a feature of ecological systems, and as such must be incorporated into
expressions of desired future conditions as well as expectations of the
results of management actions and strategies. Thus, uncertainty and
variability are primary ingredients of nearly all stewardship actions
and are best acknowledged through monitoring and adaptive management so
that change is incorporated into dynamics of collaborative stewardship.

*Acknowledge cumulative effects*

Cumulative effects are "\... the impact on the environment resulting
from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably forseeable actions regardless of what agency or
person undertakes such actions" (Council on Environmental Quality 1978).
This definition does not specify how to incorporate the role of future
natural disturbances. In addition, because of the wide variation in
site-specific practices and local environmental conditions, impacts of
management practices may not always be well understood or predicted.
While there are few analytical methods available to effectively address
cumulative impacts, new technologies will soon allow proposed actions to
be considered in terms of their cumulative effects on past, current and
other proposed actions. This type of "real-time" cumulative effects
analysis will go a long way towards addressing the foreseeable
consequences of specific decisions. Only active and on-going monitoring
provides a mechanism to detect unanticipated changes and new elements of
the system. Cumulative effects generally reach beyond administrative
boundaries, and thus there is a need to coordinate with local, state,
and federal agencies when undertaking cumulative effects analysis and
monitoring on-going changes.

*Preserve Options*

Preserving options presumes that an acceptable range of choices will be
available to address the environmental problems confronting future human
generations. It is also a way of explicitly acknowledging our incomplete
knowledge of complex ecological systems. Therefore, this philosophy an
important touchstone in planning for and managing the national forests
and grasslands.

A core element of the concept of ecological sustainability is that it is
future-oriented -- the reason to ensure the long term sustainability of
ecological systems is to ensure that future generations live in a
productive environment and have a broad range of choices. In assessing
the ecological sustainability of complex and dynamic systems, the best
single metric of sustainable use of the land is the persistence of the
plant and animal species over time. The productivity of an ecosystem can
be sustained over the long-term only if species that provide the
appropriate structure and function for the system are maintained.

Clearly, the concept of ecological sustainability means that national
forest planning and management must consider the larger landscape
context and include lands and communities beyond the boundaries of the
national forest and rangelands. National forests and rangelands are open
systems that are affected by the land uses outside their boundaries.
Thus, the characteristics of the land, the ways that people interact
with it, and what they expect from it must be assessed in terms of
ecological sustainability.

> **Contributing to Economic and Social Sustainability**

Conservation and management of the national forests and grasslands can
promote sustainability by providing for a wide variety of uses, values,
products, and services and by enhancing society's capability to make
sustainable choices. There are four dimensions to the Forest Service's
role in promoting economic and social sustainability and each is
inextricably linked to sustainable ecological systems. First, the
forests and rangelands provide many and diverse resources and values,
though which economies and communities define and sustain themselves.
Second, an effectively structured planning process can build society's
understanding of the interconnectedness of communities and economies
with sustainably managed national forests and grasslands. Third,
planning processes with continuous, open public deliberation can enhance
society's capabilities to make sustainable choices. Fourth, assessment
and planning processes can identify and assist communities in need. In
short, striving towards sustainability for the national forest system
lands provides important material, aesthetic, and democratic
contributions to society.

The Committee wishes to emphasize that management of national forest
system lands plays an important and unique role in fostering social and
economic sustainability. Forest Service stewardship of these lands,
combined with the interactions through the NFMA planning process
involves Forest Service employees and the many people who care about
these lands. This process serves a critical function in providing the
information and understanding upon which communities and economies can
assess and plan their own futures. In so doing, the Forest Service helps
society to make sustainable choices. In addition, as the skilled,
professional steward of the national forests and grasslands, the Forest
Service is uniquely situated to provide the essential knowledge and
assistance to communities as they transition to sustainable social and
economic systems.

The Forest Service however has specific obligations to adequately plan
for the future conditions of the national forests and grasslands. Our
report highlights some of these important obligations as summarized
below.

*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 value these attributes. 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 on a common ledger 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, and rangelands 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. 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. Within a context of sustaining ecological systems,
planning must take generous account of compelling local circumstances.
This approach includes the needs of ranching, farming, timber, mining
communities as well as Indian communities relying upon treaty
obligations and the Hispanic communities in the Southwest depending on
the resources in former Spanish and Mexican land grants. Within the
context of sustainability, planning should consider the needs,
resilience, and vulnerability of economies and communities in selecting
long-term management strategies.

*Recognize the rights of American Indian Tribes.*

Indian tribes possess unique and important rights recognized by federal
treaties, statutes, and executive orders. The Forest Service has a
general trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes, as well as
a duty to acknowledge them as sovereign governments and work with them
on a government-to-government basis. Depending on the circumstances of
particular tribes and national forests, national forest system lands 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.

> *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 multiple uses to occur in ways that
promote long-term sustainability. Finding strategies and actions that
contribute to long-term sustainability is the surest way to increase the
predictability of these uses, products, outputs and services desired
from the national forest system. As part of this effort, land and
resource planning is designed to identify strategies that produce
revenue from human use.

**Implications of Sustainability as the Central Organizing Principle for
Land and Resource Management Planning**

> *Recognize the national and global implications of managing national
> forests and grasslands.*

Our growing national and global population will continue to 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, societal demands may be transferred to
other countries with uncertain environmental effects.

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 are being urged to consider the effect that their management
will have on carbon sequestration and to examine alternatives that
increase the amount of carbon stored.

> *Consider the larger landscape in which the national forests and
> grasslands are located in order to understand their role in ensuring
> ecological sustainability and contributing to human uses and values.*

Land and resource planning considers the broader geographic, political,
economic, and social landscape when assessing 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. In every sector of the country,
the Forest service via its national forests and grasslands is just one
agency and one land management system among many other important
governmental and private entities and land ownerships.

Sustainability of watersheds and other areas in which national forests
and grasslands are located may inevitably depend upon activities on
nearby federal lands, tribal and state lands, and private lands, as well
as on the actions and attitudes of a wide variety of agencies,
governments, and citizens. These neighboring 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 and done within
the context of how individuals, communities, businesses, and governments
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 these other ownerships. They will increasingly be
called upon to provide the backbone of regional strategies to conserve
species and ecosystems. They will also be counted upon to provide
municipal water supplies and dispersed recreation for an increasingly
developed and settled landscape. In addition, in some areas, they are
the only substantial source of timber and forage supplies.

Planning often calls for national forests and grasslands to provide the
anchor of regional conservation strategies for protection of species and
ecosystems, thus contributing to a stable landscape within which the
extraction of timber and use of other natural resources occurs across
all ownerships. This regional approach is intended to conserve species
and ecosystems without creating 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, through
law and policy the United States has developed a strategy by which the
federal lands take the primary responsibility for protection of species
and ecosystems. Second, federal lands often have the best remaining
habitats and ecological conditions. Third, federal lands are inherently
less efficient in the production of timber and other products because of
the required planning processes to ensure protection of the environment.

> *Conserve habitat for native species and productivity of ecological
> systems as the heart of ensuring sustainable ecological systems.*

The Committee believes that conserving habitat for native species and
the productivity of ecological systems remains 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 a scientific assessment of the characteristic
composition, structure, and processes of the ecosystems in the area
being studied. This assessment provides an understanding of the expected
"ecological integrity" of the planning area. Ecosystems with integrity
maintain their characteristic species diversity and ecological processes
such as productivity, soil fertility, and rates of biogeochemical
cycling. Since ecosystems are dynamic and variable over time, the
concept of the "historic range of variability" refers to scientific
efforts to characterize the variation and distribution of ecological
conditions occurring in the past. This information serves as the basis
for comparing ecological conditions that will be created under proposed
management scenarios to the historic range of conditions. The more that
these prospective conditions differ from the characteristic historic
conditions, the greater the expected risk to native species and their
habitats as well as to long-term ecological productivity.

Second, we suggest focusing on the viability of native species
themselves. However, monitoring the status of all species and assessing
their viability is impossible from a practical standpoint, thus it is
necessary to focus on a subset of species. We adopt the generic term
"focal species" to identify those species to monitor and assess for
viability. The key characteristic of a focal species is that its
abundance, distribution, health and activity over time and space are
indicative of the functioning of the larger ecological system. The
habitat needs of the focal species are analyzed, and projections 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 have sufficient abundance and 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 national forests and grasslands by themselves are unable
to conserve native species and ecological productivity. As noted
earlier, other landowners and agencies often control key elements of the
habitats and ecological systems. Thus, in some cases, the national
forests and grasslands can contribute to, but not ensure, the
achievement of ecological sustainability**.**

It is important to note that this approach is similar to the existing
regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act. These 1982
regulations have an extensive section on "Management Requirements" that
calls for provision of adequate habitat to maintain viable populations
of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species, protection
of soils, 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, recognizing that
sustaining ecological systems is the foundation of national forest
stewardship.

In its details of implementation, however, the approach proposed by the
Committee for assessing ecological sustainability differs somewhat from
the existing one, reflecting over 15 years of experience. Conserving
habitat for native species remains central to 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 analysis of individual species, 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 necessary for ecological integrity; and
(3) monitoring the effectiveness of this approach in meeting the goals
of conserving native species and ecological productivity.

In addition, the Committee places 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 in more detail in the report, we rely on a
four-part process to insure that the best available science will be
used: (1) Scientific involvement in the selection of focal species,
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 of the Forest Service on scientific issues in
assessment and planning.

> *Reduce uncertainty through adaptive management and continuous
> learning.*

Adaptive management is a structured process of reducing uncertainty
about environmental responses to actions by viewing management actions
as experiments. Three primary ways of accumulating knowledge are
possible if management actions are viewed as experiments. These include
(1) 'trial and error' learning in which initial management choices are
made based on current understanding, and successful prescriptions are
made routine; (2) 'passive adaptive' management in which existing data
are thoroughly reviewed prior to each management decision, and the
decision selected is based on the analysis of how the system works; and
(3) 'active adaptive' management where all existing data are thoroughly
reviewed prior to each decision, but a range of alternative response
models are developed. After analysis, the management decision is
selected with the greatest likelihood of attaining the desired future
condition. Of these alternative approaches, passive and active adaptive
management accelerate the rate of learning how to best manage ecological
systems.

All these modes of learning require monitoring the results of the
management action. That is, the only way in which learning is possible
is to observe if the system responded as envisioned. A lack of
concordance between observation and expectation would lead to a revised
model of how the ecological system functions and how it responds to
management. Thus, monitoring should be viewed as an on-going process and
an essential component of responsible stewardship.

Given the stringent requirements for adaptive management, it may not be
possible to cast all management actions as adaptive experiments.
Therefore, we suggest the following guideline: the adaptive management
paradigm should be adopted when the environmental consequences of the
action are highly uncertain or when the management action may result in
significant or irreversible loss. When these conditions are met, (1) an
adaptive management design should be adopted and (2) an explicit
monitoring effort put in place that will adequately capture the
important effects of the management action. To implement only one of
these actions is insufficient.

> *Recognize that major public policy issues about the emphasis on
> ecological sustainability must be addressed in the policy and
> decision-making processes*

The Committee of Scientist's work leaves unresolved the major public
policy issues regarding the degree to which attainment of ecological
sustainability should be emphasized in the conservation 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 \--conservative use, yes,
but use nevertheless. In addition, given the current condition of the
forests, watersheds and rangelands, active management is needed in some
cases to move toward sustainability.

With human use can come risk of loss of species, habitat, and ecological
integrity. Decisions about an acceptable level of risk, for example when
to allow the extinction of species, are value-based, not science-based
decisions. Risk can be reduced by increasing understanding of the
factors controlling natural processes and moderating current levels of
use. But, complete certainty about "how nature works" may never be
attained. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, uncertainty about the
acceptable level of risk will remain. Agreement on what level of risk is
acceptable must be made through the political process. While the
scientific community can help provide the framework for risk analysis,
that same community cannot decide what is the appropriate "balance"
between use and protection.

The Committee recognizes that its role is not to dictate specific
management approaches for the Forest Service, but rather to provide
advice that the Secretary and Chief may act on as they deem appropriate.
Nonetheless, the Committee acknowledges that concepts such as focal
species, ecological integrity and the use of scientific information may
involve technical issues, and thus feels an obligation to the Secretary
and the Chief to provide some insight on how this framework for
ecological sustainability might be converted from concept to
application. Therefore, while our approach of course has not been field
tested, the Committee has drafted regulatory language that, we believe,
provides a useful approach to this issue.

**Building Stewardship Capacity for Sustainability**

The national forests and grasslands belong to the American people.
However, 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, the agency can learn from 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 must 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.

There is no doubt that achieving ecological, economic and social
sustainability is a formidable task that the US Forest Service cannot
accomplish alone. To succeed, the Forest Service must be willing to try
new approaches, organize in new ways, experiment, learn and adapt. To
succeed, they must recognize the imperative to work with others outside
the agency. To succeed, the capacity of these non-Forest Service
entities to help must be present. In other words, the stewardship
capacity to achieve sustainability must be fostered both within the
Forest Service as well as within the other agencies, governments,
communities, groups and individuals who must be a part of this endeavor.

> *Provide opportunities and incentives for people to work together,
> establishing collaborative relationships*

The ability of the Forest Service and other individuals, organizations,
agencies and governments to work together toward common purposes is the
foundation of collaborative stewardship capacity. To pursue
sustainability, the process of stewarding National Forest System lands
needs to engage those who have the information, knowledge, and expertise
to contribute; those who have sole control or authority over lands and
activities adjacent to national forests and grasslands; those who have
the skills, energy, time, and resources to carry out stewardship
activities; and, those who can independently validate the credibility of
stewardship decisions and the reality of achievements. In short, many
and diverse collaborative relationships between and among the Forest
Service and other agencies, governments, organizations, communities and
individuals are central to building stewardship capacity.

> *Foster a broad-based understanding of the issues, concerns and*
>
> *opportunities of National Forest planning*

There are many factors that bear on management of the national forests
and grasslands. There are many shared and divergent issues that concern
the Forest Service and its non-Forest Service partners. For stewardship
capacity to be enhanced, the broad array of issues, interests and
concerns, legal and administrative constraints and possibilities, and
budgetary realities need to be understood across the spectrum of
individuals, agencies, and groups who are a part of the planning
process. With an informed and realistic understanding of the complexity
of the stewardship task, people will be encouraged and enabled to make
reasoned and reasonable contributions to the process.

> *Encourage joint fact-finding*

Jointly conducted assessments and analyses are a key first step towards
building the capacity for stewardship across the range of individuals
and organizations who care about the national forests. This
joint-fact-finding can establish a credible and common base of
information available to all participants in the planning process.

> *Provide an organizational context that promotes ongoing learning and*
>
> *adaptation*

Because stewardship designed to achieve sustainability differs from the
structure of the previous approach to planning, there is need for
experimentation and adaptation. Stewardship capacity will be enhanced if
there is a supportive environment within the Forest Service that
encourages and accommodates this experimentation and learning.

*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 non-technical 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. In order to be a realistic participant in the planning
process, from the beginning citizens must be made aware of how the
Congressional budgetary process can influence and alter the
implementation of formal plans.

*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 these concepts 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; and none that
give an image of the future landscape that will be achieved under the
plan. Rather, there are lots of thick obscure documents useful in court
cases, but few, if any, explanations designed for the common citizen or
for new Forest Service employees[.]{.smallcaps} To regain public support
for its policies and management, we believe the Forest Service must make
a far greater effort to explain these policies, in an understandable
manner, to the people who own these lands.

*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 on human communities. Many restoration actions are needed on
these lands, including programs to improve riparian conditions, reduce
fuel loads, and rebuild or 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
concerns are deliberated, analyzed, and questions defined, so that all
those involved can actively work on developing solutions to them. For
this involement to occur, the public must be a part of defining 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
deliberation of important public issues is the essence of public
planning.

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

While it may be unreasonable to expect consensus on particular
management decisions on national forests and grasslands, 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.
The Committee report rests on this national interest in sustainability,
and identifies a planning process that can work towards regional and
local management strategies capable of reflecting areas of agreement and
issues of continuing conflict. Our strong reliance upon external review
stems from recognition that conflicts will necessarily remain and can
only be addressed through continuing opportunities for public and agency
dialogue and learning.

**Collaborative Stewardship for Sustainability**

Stewardship of ecological, economic and social systems is not and cannot
be the sole responsibility of any single agency or landowner. Rather,
sustainability is the guiding star for decisions by many government
agencies and landowners. Ideally, the federal land management planning
processes for public lands and resources would be harmonized into an
integrated process leading to a unified stewardship plan for achieving
sustainability on all public lands in the area. In the meantime,
recognizing that the national forests and grasslands cannot be
considered in a vacuum, the Committee recommends a collaborative
planning process that engages other agencies, governments, businesses,
organizations, communities and citizens in planning for and contributing
to the stewardship of the national forest system, including
consideration of how other public and private lands are used and managed
with respect to achieving common goals.

*.*

Collaborative planning embraces both the processes for crafting and
choosing courses of actions and the efforts to achieve desired results.
Collaborative planning is a process by which all those whose ideas,
resources, and capabilities are needed to achieve results work together
over time. Thus, in contrast to planning within a single agency or
organization, collaborative planning includes the full range of
processes: assembling information, evaluating information in the context
of goals, creating a vision of desired future conditions, crafting
future courses of action to strive toward achieving those conditions,
choosing specific pathways of management activities, implementing
specific management actions, measuring performance, evaluating outcomes
in terms of expectations, and revisiting decisions as necessary..

The concept of collaborative planning is important in understanding our
proposed approach. The current planning process lies largely within the
Forest Service and requires only limited coordination with others. As a
result, information is gathered as a basis for characterizing the
current management conditions and for the needs of various computer
models, not for developing a shared body of information. Nor, is it
developed as an independent body of information from which current
management actions can be placed in historical context or compared
across large regions. Similarly, the decision process parallels the
requirements of NEPA, but seldom effectively coordinates with other
agencies and governments as required by NFMA. As a result the public and
all other stakeholders are typically involved at the initial "issue
identification" stage and not involved again until the review of
alternatives presented in the draft EIS.

Collaborative planning is necessary to achieve collaborative
stewardship, and, thereby, meet the legal and policy responsibilities
for sustainability. Thus, collaborative planning needs to develop
scientifically credible strategies for ecological sustainability,
options for multiple use management that respond to public interests and
issues, management actions to achieve these goals, along with the
organizational capacity for adaptive management and monitoring.

From the perspective of the Forest Service (or any other single agency)
developing a clear logic of decision-making within a collaborative
planning process requires that the strategic vision and goals of the
agency be integrated into strategic plans and realized through
implementation decisions. Thus, a collaborative planning process
requires a multi-level decision process wherein decisions are made at
the scale of the management issue. To meet the requirements of NFMA, all
decisions should be memorialized and the rationale displayed within an
integrated land and resource management plan for the individual national
forest or grassland. From this plan, every national forest and grassland
will be expected to develop a simple and compelling expression of
expected future actions, the differences planning will make, and why the
results are worthwhile.

> **Assessments Provide A Credible Foundation of Information**

Within a collaborative planning process, credible information emerges
from collaborative scientific assessment processes at both large and
small scales. A critical component of our proposed framework is that
assessments are not decision documents and should not be made to
function under the NEPA processes associated with decision making.
Rather, assessments provide the foundation of independent information
upon which to build conservation strategies and management decisions,
and against which alternative approaches can be evaluated and modified

> *Understake assessments as joint public-scientific inquiries that
> build both a knowledge base for planning and institutions and
> relationships to carry out stewardship.*

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, it is clear
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
a broad spatial perspective 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.

Assessments lay the groundwork for developing regional, scientifically
credible conservation strategies. Assessments are also necessary in
order to --- identify the elements of conservation strategies as well as
scientifically credible procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of
such strategies in achieving sustainability. Such work requires a
critical mass of scientists, working independently, but reporting
periodically to a broader public group that includes agency managers to
enable critique, discussion, and joint learning.

> *Conduct assessments at the bioregional scale and at a smaller scale,
> like a watershed.*

The Committee envisions 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-level strategic planning. Assessments at the more local level,
such as watersheds, will be needed to help translate strategic plans for
large landscapes into site-specific management actions. In some cases
where the bioregional assessment is at a very large scale, for example
the Columbia River Basin assessment, an intermediate scale of analysis
may be needed. Nearly half of the National Forest System lands have a
recent bioregional assessment of some form.

**Collaborative planning necessitates multi-level decision making.**

Building upon the assessments, decision making takes place at the
bioregional, large landscape, and small landscape levels. \<\<NOTE -
insert planning fig. here\>\>

*Develop overall guidance on sustainability for "bioregions"*

Special focus needs to be placed on regional guidance for scientifically
credible strategies for conservation of wide-ranging species and
large-scale ecosystem processes. In the past, regional plans often fell
short in their guidance on ecological sustainability. National Forests
and Grasslands, 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. In the future, significant efforts
in bioregional planning must be focused 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 as well as
salmon stocks in the Northwest (FEMAT), the Red-cockaded woodpecker
(southeast), the Northern 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.

Given the integrated focus on sustainability, regional guidance may be
needed to encourage and promote 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 could direct planning to consider the differing resiliency
and vulnerability of communities across the region. And, in an
increasingly global economy, regional guidance can contribute to shaping
policies enhancing the competitiveness of local and regional markets and
products.

> *Undertake strategic planning of large landscapes within regions for
> attaining long-term goals*

Strategic planning occurs at 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. Strategic
planning needs to consider the full range of goals, multiple uses, and
public issues of concern in the area. The central reference point for
strategic planning is developing the "desired future conditions,"
recognizing the larger landscape surrounding the national forests and
grasslands. The information from the assessments provides the basis for
developing and using visual means of expressing the desired future
conditions. Strategic planning then focuses on developing pathways and
actions to achieve the suite of desired future conditions.

This approach contrasts sharply with the past in which land and resource
planning generally focused on relatively short-term issues of land
allocations and timber harvest levels. Although these issues are
important and consistent with the emphasis on sustainability, strategic
planning must emphasize the development of desired long-term landscape
conditions and outcomes that will provide a pathway towards
sustainability. Current attempts at "large landscape" planning include
the coordinated efforts on plan revision occurring on five forests in
the southern Appalachians, three southern Idaho national forests, and
the national forests of the Sierra Nevada.

*Conduct operational planning for small landscapes*

A "small landscape" level decision process identifies the types and
locations of actions to carry out the long-term strategic goals and
policies. The need to consider connected actions, cumulative effects and
enable the public to understand the geographic context within which the
actions occur argues for an approach to project planning that considers
a larger geographic area than is usually covered by a single project.
There often is a 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 an
adaptive management approach, 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, small-landscape planning covers from 10,000 to 100,000
acres.

**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
management plan for each National Forest and Grassland. In our approach
the integrated land and resource plan for each administrative unit of
the National Forest System is the assemblage of all policies and
decisions affecting the unit. This integrated plan can include: regional
guidance for conservation strategies relevant to the area; the strategic
vision, policies and multiple use goals developed through large
landscape planning, including the description of the desired future
condition; proposed management pathways for achieving the desired future
condition and multiple use goals; implementing decisions and proposed
project level management activities developed at the small landscape
level; and sufficient records and documentation from monitoring to
support on-going adaptive management. As the foundation of
administrative policy and guidance, this planning documentation also
should include the budget and staffing needs for implementation as well
as the procedures and timing of monitoring and review processes. As a
management tool, the plan not only includes monitoring processes, but
also record 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 and decision-making
hierarchy whose geographic extent at the different levels will seldom
occur at the boundaries of a particular national forest or grassland.
Nonetheless, the physical repository of the planning decisions made at
all levels rests at within administrative units, because an integrated
land and resource management plan must also include the budgetary and
staffing resources for carrying out the proposed policies and
activities.

Thus, the Land and Resource Management Plan should be 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" thus represents
a way of incorporating the dynamic nature of decisions in an adaptive
management approach. Clearly, performance evaluation is a necessary and
ongoing aspect of monitoring and evaluation.

**Develop new institutions for creating, using and evaluating scientific
information**

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 plans using scientific information 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 ecological, economic, and
social sustainability. Thus, the Committee of Scientists has suggested
new institutions along with new roles for scientists in assessments,
planning, implementation, monitoring and review.

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

Assessments have a crucial role in providing the information base for
planning. As part of that effort, scientists should 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 need to suggest measures of ecological integrity, procedures for
obtaining these measurements, and ways to assess whether ecological
systems are being sustained. Finally, they can suggest important
elements of conservation strategies to conserve species and ecosystems
for use in planning. Recent work in the Pacific Northwest (FEMAT and
ICBEMP) illustrates this approach.

> *Support a sustained commitment of Forest Service Research to
> collaborative planning and adaptive management*

The Forest Service is blessed with its own research
organization---perhaps 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.

Decisions based in part on scientific information will require the
involvement of scientists and knowledgeable people both inside and
outside the federal government. However a key to the success of science
involvement in planning is a strong, deep, and sustained commitment from
Forest Service Research. Forest Service Research will necessarily need
to shoulder major responsibilities for the contribution of science and
scientists to land and resource planning -- from assessments to
monitoring. While collaborative planning will no doubt be assisted by
scientists in other federal agencies as well as from outside the federal
government, Forest Service Research will need to form a reliable core of
scientists experienced in such efforts. These added responsibilities
will require a refocused role for this branch of the Forest Service
along with new institutions and new funding to make it work; otherwise,
the shift of resources to assist planning will undercut the major
research mission of the organization.

> *Better utilize the technical capacity of staff on the national
> forests and grasslands to link scientific results and principles to
> management actions and monitoring.*

While Forest Service Research has an important and central role to
fulfill in enhancing 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 an interface between policy-makers and the
research community as well as between policy-makers and managers \-- on
issues bearing on the scientific basis for decision-making. Forest
Service Research can, for example, help create and evaluate
science-based protocols for monitoring or assessments; develop the
scientific basis for creating, evaluating, and modifying management
standards and guides; and coordinate independent review of the
scientific foundation of plans. Yet, National Forest System technical
specialists need to bear responsibility for assisting, enabling and
ensuring managers' ability to apply this guidance to their day-to-day
management decisions.

**Institutionalize review and evaluation processes as on-going elements
of stewardship**

*Establish a national science and technology advisory board*

The Committee recommends that a national science and technology advisory
board be created in order to provide highly qualified and independent
scientific advice to the Forest Service. The more that conservation
strategies and management actions are based on scientific findings and
analysis, the greater the need for an ongoing process to ensure that the
most current and complete scientific and technical knowledge is used.
Such a board could also provide advice on the current "state of the
knowledge" when policy decisions and management actions must reconcile
variation in scientific findings or uncertainty in scientific results.

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

Monitoring is a key component of planning. Yet, monitoring was not
typically considered part of the planning process. Standard monitoring
procedures need to be incorporated into the planning procedures and
designed to be part of the information used to inform decisions.
Adaptive management and learning are not possible without effective
monitoring of actual consequences from management activities.

It is absolutely crucial that monitoring become a central component of
planning if performance evaluations are to provide accurate and useful
information, and if there is to be any kind of an "early warning system"
given the inevitable risks involved in management activities. Monitoring
needs to be given very strong emphasis in the new approach to planning
and adequate budgets, Staff need to be assigned to monitoring to ensure
that the results of management actions are continuously monitored and
the data gathered transformed into usable and used information for
evaluating, and if necessary changing, management actions.

> *Establish independent reviews on the use of technical and scientific
> information in planning and on 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. Independent reviews can provide verification
> that plans and their implementation are consistent with current
> scientific concepts. There should be an evaluation of consistency of
> strategic goals and objectives with scientific and technical
> understanding at critical spatial and temporal scales.
>
> Independent review can also promote adaptive management and learning.
> For example, reviews can highlight and reward creative approaches to
> the challenging management issues. It can, by its very presence,
> encourage collaboration between managers, specialists, and scientists
> at all stages of the planning process.

**Integrate Budget Realities into Planning**

Past land and resource management 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) to achieve those goals. Typically these actions are spread
across a decade. Seldom did this planning process limit budget
expectations to current or recent past experience. Rather the plans were
developed with the expectation that they would define the budget levels,
based on conclusions reached by the planning process and with public
support. This approach often led to disappointment during plan
implementation, when Congress appropriated less money than envisioned by
the ten-year plan and targeted the funds it did allocate to a different
mix of actions and outputs than called for in the plans.

*Set set long-term goals using credible budgets and let actual 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. Thus, there must be some
relationship between the plan and the budget available to undertake the
activities outlined in the plan. As outlined above, strategic planning
should concentrate on setting the long-term goals and the associated
desired future conditions, and should 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 required to achieve and to maintain
desired future conditions should be examined; if the costs appear
unrealistic, less expensive desired future conditions may need to 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. The Forest Service is
responsible for informing the public when the plan is being amended.
During the periodic revision process, a comparison should be made
between the expected and actual budgets in the past so that future
strategies are based on realistic budget expectations.

> *Extend public participation in planning 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.

*Attempt to put more national forest goods and services, such as
recreation, on a paying basis.*

One way to reduce the uncertainty of budgeting is to fund activities out
a percentage share of the net returns from user fees. Such an approach
should reduce the dependence of the Forest Service on the vagaries of
the budget process, encourage managers to be efficient in their
expenditures, and provide signals indicating the value that members of
the pubic place on different goods and services.

Some forms of recreation, as an example, would seem perfect for this
approach. Recent RPA Assessments suggest the American people would be
willing to pay many billions of dollars per year for the right to enjoy
different types of recreation on the national forests. The Demonstration
Fee Project, now in operation, provides an approach to recouping these
moneys and using them in the local area. Similar efforts should follow.
As an another example, developing stand treatment projects that
contribute to sustainability while paying for themselves will be a major
challenge for the next decade. While it is difficult or impossible to
charge individually for collective goods such as protection of
endangered species, self-financing activities will be one key in the
future to stable programs on the national forests.

**Key Elements in the Collaborative Planning Process**

> *Make "desired future conditions" and the outcomes associated with
> them, the central reference points for planning*

Collaborative planning createslanning is animated by collective vision
of the desired future conditions, which consider the larger landscape in
which the national forests and grasslands are located. a collective
vision of future landscape conditions, and the uses, products, values,
and services that will be provided by these conditions. It 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.

The central reference point for strategic planning is developing the
"desired future conditions," within the context of the larger landscape
surrounding the national forests and grasslands, recognizing serial
changes in the nature of the forest and the forest condition. Desired
future conditions, thus, refer to the intertemporal pathway of a dynamic
changing forest. The information from the assessments provides the basis
for developing and using visual means of expressing the desired future
conditions. Strategic planning then focuses on developing actions to
achieve the suite of desired future conditions. This task, however, will
not be easy. This approach contrasts sharply with the past in which land
and resource planning generally focused on relatively short-term issues
of land allocations and timber harvest levels. However, just as the
difficulty of producing an even-flow harvest level through time arises
from several sources including the inherently dynamic nature of
ecological systems, this inherently dynamic situation that will make
management for a "desired future conditions" also difficult to predict
or achieve with precision. Although these are difficult issues, we
believe that, consistent with the emphasis on sustainability, strategic
planning must emphasize the development of desired long-term landscape
conditions and outcomes that will provide a pathway towards
sustainability. Current attempts at "large landscape" planning include
the coordinated efforts on plan revision occurring on five forests in
the southern Appalachians, three southern Idaho national forests, and
the national forests of the Sierra Nevada

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

Within the context of natural disturbance regimes, collaborative
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 actions 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; or (3) reevaluating the possibility of achieving the desired
future conditions in light of the actual conditions.

Budgeting by amount and type of actions needed, rather than timber
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 expected timber 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 expectations will provide a key piece of
information about progress toward the desired future condition.

> *Provide local management flexibility through independent field
> review*

OR\<\<NOTE - choose one\>\>

*Combine local management flexibility with independent field review*

Since planning is a creative and educative learning process, effective
problem solving works best on small landscapes where local managers in
collaboration with others can recognize and work within local conditions
in moving toward desired future conditions. The justification for this
flexibility rests on the importance of utilizing the creative powers of
resource managers within a collaborative planning process in order to
respond to the tremendous diversity across complex natural systems. In
this way, managerial discretion can be a means to improving the
reliability and effectiveness of broad policies applied at the local
level.

Part and parcel with this discretion is the need for independent
evaluation of how well site-specific implementation plans achieve
strategic goals. In addition to ensuring consistency of actions with
goals, field reviews also can highlight creative solutions and
innovative approaches to common issues. Without an independent
evaluation of specific projects and their implementation, it is
difficult to justify such flexibility at the local level.

The key to successful implementation lies in harnessing the creative
talents of national forest managers and interested members of
businesses, communities, tribes, state and local governments and the
public. With this collaborative approach public trust will be improved
and local managers are more likely to develop successful approaches to
implementation of strategic goals. 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.

> *Keep decisions close to the planning area.*

Currently, the Chief is responsible for regional plans and the Regional
Forester is responsible for National Forest and Grassland plans.
Experience shows that this approach inhibits change and adaptation both
at both planning levels. We suggest that the Regional Foresters be
responsible for bioregional policy guidance and that the Forest
Supervisors be responsible for strategic, large-landscape planning.
Forest Supervisors should work closely with District Rangers in for the
small-landscape, implementation planning. 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.

> *Emphasize ecological boundaries for assessment and planning, but also
> consider their social meaning.*

In the past, planning boundaries were generally based on political,
economic, or social boundaries--- such as 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 tops. 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 for
assessing economic and social processes.

Collaborative planning at the large- and small-landscape levels needs to
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 Chattooga Watershed Conservation Plan in the
Southeast.

> *Address all federal lands within the area and work, to the degree
> feasible, with all affected federal agencies.*

In the past, land and resource management 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 improved their efforts at 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 and local
governments, tribes, non-governmental and private organizations, 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 also want
to participate.

> *Move Toward Integrated Administration of Jurisdictionally Fragmented
> Areas*

National forests and grasslands 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
and grassland, 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. However, since 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 and grasslands 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 simply requires the Forest
Service to pursuit its objectives in the least cost manner and to insure
that social benefits from its actions exceed social costs.

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 argue that efficiency analysis,
broadly interpreted to address non-market as well as market outputs,
serves an important function in planning the management of national
forests and grasslands. 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.

> *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.

> *Regard suitability of land for resource management as an outcome of
> the planning process*

The classification of lands as to their suitability for different kinds
of resource management should be made during planning for large
landscapes. Land classifications are often needed to support decisions
at various levels and can be incorporated into the land and resource
management plan. Furthermore, the identification of lands not suited for
timber production should be a subset of the identification of the
suitability of lands for different types of resource management.

The planning process should produce 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.

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.*

Under this clause, timber harvest can occur for the "protection of other
multiple use values," even where the forest is not suitable for timber
production. Thus, lands suitable for resource management involving
timber harvest need two sub-categories: (1)

timber harvest is prohibited, and (2) timber harvest is permitted. When
timber harvest is permitted, however it might be either (1) for
protection of other multiple use values, even though timber production
is not a goal, or (2) that timber production is one of several goals.

Given this complexity, it is not surprising that 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. However, the criterion of economic
efficiency broadly defined should eliminate many of these conflicts. For
example, lands should be viewed as unsuited for harvest if the costs of
regeneration, including using a reasonable discount rate, e.g., 10
percent, cannot be covered by the benefits (returns) from the future
timber sales. In this case the initial harvest of the old growth should
not be undertaken since it is inconsistent with efficient attainment of
long-term sustainability. Lands may also be unsuitable due to
environmental damages associated with the harvest, e.g., serious erosion
or water quality deterioration, that exceed any surplus of harvest
revenues over harvest costs. Similarly, economic criteria suggest that
below cost timber sales do not pass the efficient test and therefore
should not be undertaken unless justified by the achievement of some
other end, marketed or nonmarketed, of sufficient value to justify the
revenue losses. For example, if the below cost activity generate
substantial values in turkey browse to compensate for the losses, the
activity would be meet the efficiency criteria. The careful use of
economic criteria should eliminate many of the questionable practices of
the past. **W**e do believe these problems are solvable by appropriate
analysis of revenues and costs. Furthermore, such problems can be
avoided by using the scientifically credible, participatory planning
process that we recommend in the report, and by striving to attain the
overarching goal of ecological sustainability.

**Watersheds and Timber Supply \--A Traditional Focus of the Forest
Service in Achieving Sustainability**

Watershed and timber issues are by statute key management purposes of
the Forest Service. From the first Congressional management guidance to
the forest reserves in 1897 to the more recent National Forest
Management Act, watersheds and timber supplies have been singled out for
special legislative attention. Thus, the Committee has developed general
recommendations for these important resources.

Other legitimate uses of the resources of national forests and
grasslands are also memorialized in statute, but are not addressed
specifically in these recommendations. Our intent is that the planning
process will identify resource uses and protective strategies most
appropriate to a specific planning unit and will propose management
strategies that integrate the management and use of those resources in a
manner best suited to each situation. Prescriptive recommendations from
the Committee regarding the management of individual resources, or
resource uses, would be counter to this philosophy. A balanced approach
to the tripartite concept of sustainability, implemented through a
collaborative planning process, can integrate resource conservation and
use it more effectively than any prescription the Committee could
provide.

*Develop a strategy for conserving and restoring watersheds*

Given the importance of water flows and watersheds in the legislation
underlying the purposes for creating and managing of the national
forests and grasslands, the Committee has articulated a strategy for
conserving and restoring 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 their flow regimes; (3) Recognize
watersheds in assessment and planning; (4) Develop an overall strategy
for setting priorities for restoration and use; (5) Energize the people
of the watershed to help provide for their stewardship. 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; (6) Monitor watershed conditions
over time as part of adaptive management.

> *Recognize the role of timber harvest in achieving sustainability*

From the beginning, a major purpose of the national forests has been to
ensure a sustainable supply of timber for the American people. 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.\" Indeed, the primary reason for enacting National Forest
Management Act was to provide authorization for timber harvest
consistent with current silvicultural knowledge and harvesting
techniques.

Silviculture is the process whereby humans tend, harvest, and
re-establish stands of timber within forested landscapes. Silvicultural
practices, such as timber harvest and prescribed burning, can help meet
stand-specific objectives for species composition and forest structure
along with 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.

Regional assessments need to define the historical characteristics of
disturbances and stocking conditions as a context for selecting
silvicultural methods. The Committee emphasizes 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 focal 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 maintenance or
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 silvicultural approaches for
achieving stand and landscape objectives, including the selection of
silvicultural systems and restocking standards.

> *Develop flexible regeneration requirements that allow for natural
> seeding*

Natural regeneration and associated ecosystem characteristics should be
considered specifically in the regulatory process. NFMA states that the
Forest Service should \"ensure 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, natural regeneration
relates to 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, will likely have a chilling effect
on the willingness of managers to give natural regeneration an
opportunity.

NFMA also calls for the Forest Service 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 (ii) 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, but
not as a default method. There are species, ecosystems, and disturbance
conditions for which a convincing argument can be made for the
\"optimality\" of clearcutting. While clearcutting may be an obvious
choice for the regeneration of pioneering tree species, it may not be
the only approach for regeneration and management. Suitable conditions
for regeneration can almost always be created with a range of
alternative reproduction methods, e.g., clearcutting-with-reserve-trees,
shelterwoods, and even large-group selection.

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. For those cases where managers
would like to use clearcutting, it should be clearly justified as the
best regeneration method for that situation.

> *Select the size of timber harvest areas to promote ecological
> sustainability*

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. However, any limits regarding the minimum or maximum opening
sizes of harvest blocks need to be based on the ecology of the species
and disturbances typical of the region.

Generalized harvest unit limits can sometimes 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 managing the size of disturbance created through harvest. To emulate
natural disturbances, the overall size of the harvest units should be
designed in accordance with patterns of disturbance on the broader
landscape.

> *Recognize that adherence to sustainability increases the
> predictability of a "continuous supply of timber for the use and
> necessities of citizens of the United States"*

The National Forest Management Act limits timber removals to be "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\..." given
certain provisions. The need for predictable, sustainable timber harvest
levels changes over time. 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.
Today, focal species are one way to assess ecological sustainability.
The difficulty of producing an even-flow harvest level through time
arises from several sources including the inherently dynamic nature of
ecological systems. Of course, it is this inherently dynamic situation
that will make management for a "desired future conditions" also
difficult to predict or achieve with precision. Such inescapable
uncertainty has lessened the capability of sustained yield management to
contribute to \"community stability\". Also, questions have been raised
as to whether community stability is the appropriate goal.

Still, there is the desire for predictability in timber harvest levels.
Without some notion of the magnitude of likely offerings, it is
improbable that investment will occur in wood processing facilities.
Ultimately, national forests may be faced with a situation in which the
operators needed to undertake desired stand treatments are not
available. Just as the timber industry in many parts of the country
requires outputs from the national forests, the national forests need a
functional 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.

Thus, the more that timber harvest contributes to long-term
sustainability, the more predictable timber outputs will be. 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. On the
other hand, thinning understories to reduce fuel and produce commercial
volume can meet with acceptance and approval.

> *Do not compromise the goal of ecological sustainability via timber
> harvest activities.*

The ultimate constraint on allowable timber harvest activities is that
they cannot compromise the goal of ecological sustainability. 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. 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 relative to prescription
goals; the volume taken is the result of applying the prescription.
Planning, budgeting, and monitoring should focus on the kinds and
amounts of expected actions and the collective ecological impacts that
arise from these actions.

**External Influences on Collaborative Planning and Stewardship**

*Improve the relationship between plans and budgets*

Budget levels necessarily affect both the potential desired future
conditions and the rate of progress towards achieving those conditions.
If planning is to be effective it should make a difference and generate
worthwhile results. These simple tests cannot be met unless budgets are
adequate to achieve the desired results. Since costs are important, the
choice of a set of desired future conditions needs to include analysis
of reasonable budgetary expectations. However, performance will always
depend partially on available budgets as so progress must be regularly
assessed based upon available resources. When progress is inhibited by
lack of financial resources, there comes a time when the goal itself
must be reconsidered in light of reasonable budgetary expectations.

> *Recognize that a post-decisional appeals process does not provide
> incentives for collaborative planning and stewardship.*

The current appeals process is not conducive to collaboration, indeed it
hampers it by providing strong incentives to "leave the table." Within a
multi-agency collaborative process, this problem is compounded by the
different rules regarding how appeals are treated for each agency. It is
clear to the Committee that this is a serious problem and requires a new
approach. However, only one part of the problem has to do with appeals
from the public. In a collaborative planning context, agencies need to
develop new approaches for working with each other and methods for
reconciling differences in responsibilities and outlook. Thus, the
Committee recommends that a multi-agency task group carefully examine
this problem and ideally develop an appeals process that is consistent
across agencies. The Committee recognizes that legislation currently
requires post-decisional appeals for project decisions. Nonetheless,
this requirement needs to be analyzed in the context of the new
approaches to planning and recommendations for changes made to ensure
that a collaborative planning process will not be undermined

*Recognize differences in legal responsibilities and missions across
federal agencies.*

The Committee heard many comments from people concerned about the
potential substantive and procedural differences across the numerous
federal statutes affecting federal land and resource management. While
ideally these differences might be reconciled by new legislation, such a
process is for the long term. The Committee's approach is to recommend a
collaborative planning process in which representatives from other
agencies responsible for implementing these laws are involved in the
planning process at all stages. In addition, representatives of agencies
with jurisdiction or interest would be members of the teams undertaking
the project reviews of implementation plans.

The Committee hopes that the collaborative planning process and the
recognition that collaborative stewardship is necessary is an important
first step toward developing coordinated policies and activities across
administrative boundaries. Indeed, only by beginning with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the
Endangered Species Act, to name only a few of the important
environmental statutes in natural resource management, can these
requirements be consistently met in land and resource plans. The best
way to achieve this integration of responsibilities is by developing
multi-agency planning teams who consider all lands within a planning
area and reconcile differences in mission and responsibility in context.

\<\<NOTE: Need to review the potential conflicts among legal
requiments\>\>

**Conclusions**

Sustainability in its modern sense fully captures the essences of more
than a century of American conservation and natural resource management.
Indeed, the integration of the ecological, economic and social
components into one over-arching concept brings clarity of both
understanding and action to our history of public land management. The
Committee uses the term "ecological sustainability" to refer to the
special responsibility for the management of the national forests and
grasslands. However, these lands are part of a larger, integrated
framework, and the people and their livelihoods remain equally important
in developing plans for the conservation, use and management of the
national forests and grasslands.

It is the hope of the Committee that our report will bring into one
document many of the exciting innovations in land stewardship that are
being applied on some systems. Innovations in the use of information and
map manipulations with computer technology has let people visualize
future landscapes. Innovations in the use of new modes of communication
allow each national forest and grassland to involve citizens and groups
around the country, all of whom care passionately about the public
lands, to participate in shaping the future visions for these lands.
Innovation in the use of new methods of analysis to better utilize the
data from monitoring and incorporate adaptive management to promote
learning and change.

It is also our hope that by including the many diverse perspectives of
science planning that each committee member brings to this task, even
when we see issues somewhat differently, that this report will foster
the kinds of public deliberation and debate deserved by those who work
daily to manage the public lands in the best interest of the public.