**Dear Reader\--This is the 3rd draft of the COS Report. It is rough and
incomplete in portions and subject to major revision as the COS meets in
a series of FACA calls to discuss it. Still, we thought it would be
useful for people interested in our process to see it.**

**SUSTAINING THE PEOPLE'S LANDS**

**Recommendations for Stewardship of the National Forests and
Grasslands**

**into the Next Century**

**DRAFT #3**

**Committee of Scientists**

**JULY 8,1998**

> National Forests are made for and owned by the people. They should
> also be managed by the people. They are made not to give the officers
> in charge of them a chance to work out theories, but to give the
> people who use them and those who are affected by their use a chance
> to work out their own best profit. This means that if national forests
> are going to accomplish anything worthwhile, the people must know all
> about them, must take an active part in their management. . . .

Gifford Pinchot, Chief of the Forest Service (1907)

> Right up front, I clearly state, without equivocation, that these are
> *our* lands today --- the lands of all the people. These are *our*
> lands --- they belong to us lock, stock and barrel. And they will be
> *our* lands and *our* children's and *our* children's children's lands
> far into the future unless we, as a people, through carelessness or
> apathy or conscious choice, allow that precious heritage to be sold or
> traded away for pottage.

Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the Forest Service (1996)

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**(Revised)**

Introduction: THE CONTEXT FOR LAND STEWARDSHIP IN THE NEXT GENERATION

Chapter One: SUSTAINING THE LANDS, ECONOMIES, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES

Chapter Two: IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABILITY

A. Ecological Sustainability

B. Economic and Social Sustainability

C. Democratic Processes for Sustainability

Chapter Three: INTERPRETING THE NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT IN THE
CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABILITY

A. Diversity of Plant and Animal Communties and the Productive Capacity
of the Land

B. Watersheds

C. Identifying the Suitability of Lands for Resource Management

D. Silviculture and the Sustained Yield of Timber

Chapter Four: PLANNING TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY AND DEEPEN PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT

A. A Proposed Process and Structure

B. Challenge of Science-Based Planning

C. Monitoring and Adaptive Management

Chapter Five: EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON FOREST SERVICE PLANNING

A. The Budget Process

B. Other Laws

Chapter Six: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE STEWARDSHIP OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS
AND GRASSLANDS

Chapter Seven: CONCLUSION

**INTRODUCTION**

**THE CONTEXT FOR LAND STEWARDSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY**

NOTE\--the figures in this text are schematic and not intended, at this
stage, to be accurate. We will get the real numbers soon, but I think
the reader can get the idea from what is here)

The mid 1970s were tumultuous times for the nation\'s national forests.
Environmental and commodity interests were at loggerheads over the way
forest management ought to be practiced on the national forest lands.
The courts had declared, as in the Monongahela decision (Izaak Walton
League v. Butz, 1975), that many common Forest Service management
practices were illegal and many citizens had lost confidence in the
management of the Forest Service. There were arguments that the
discretion of the FS ought to be severely limited and a prescriptive
management regime imposed by the Congress. It was within this context
that the Congress, in the mid 1970s, crafted the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA) designed to rectify the difficulties that the
country was facing in the management of its national forests.
Multiple-use was to be codified not only in law, as it had been since
the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act (1960), but also in a mandated
planning process.

**The NFMA, its Implementing Regulations, and the Committee of
Scientists**

The NFMA was the vehicle to resolve these conflicts and its passage was
hailed by many as a great success. In the euphoria of the times, Senator
Hubert Humphrey, the major Congressional actor who promoted the NFMA as
it ultimately emerged and was passed in 1976, anticipated that the
legislation would substantially limit future litigation as people
reasoned together in developing mutually satisfactory plans for managing
the national forests.

NFMA was predicated on the notion that the key to resolving conflicts
over the national forests lay with the development of integrated land
and resource plans for each national forest, after careful reasoning and
analysis as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Reinforcing the commitment to public involvement in NEPA, the NFMA
called for public participation in the creation of these plans. In
addition to the need for integrated plans, NFMA recognized the need to
limit and redirect the Forest Service's traditional emphasis on timber
management. As Senator Humphrey said,\...it is long past time to see the
forest as merely timber\....

The NFMA was predicated on two key assumptions. The first was that the
planning process, by explicitly requiring public participation, would
contribute substantially to the development of a national \"shared
vision\" that would define and clarify the objectives of the National
Forest System. The view was that the planning process would force a more
comprehensive approach to managing the national forests, one that
considered the long-term, forest-wide implications of management actions
*and* was better informed of public concerns and desires by far-reaching
public involvement opportunities.

Second was the assumption that the land and resource plans would be
viewed by the Congress as providing a guideline for Congressional
budgeting. After all, if the process generated a strong base of support
for forest management objectives among a wide range of the American
people, this constituency then would encourage Congress to provide
adequate funding to generate budgets consistent with the plans. In other
words, if the plans were well-conceived through comprehensive assessment
combined with extensive public involvement, then Congress would be more
apt to fund the implementation of these plans.

The NFMA granted a large measure of discretion to the Secretary of
Agriculture to formulate regulations to implement the Act\--to describe
in more detail what many of the noble, yet often ambiguous phrases in
the Act meant. An unusual passage in the NFMA called for creation of a
Committee of Scientists to help the Secretary of Agriculture develop
these regulations. The Committee of Scientists struggled for three years
in discharging their duty and at the end pronounced the resulting
regulations as generally sound and asked that groups on all sides give
the planning process a chance to work.

**The First Round of Land and Resource Plans**

Over the next 10-15 years the national forests struggled mightily to
complete these plans. As the Chairman of the COS stated, "no one paid
the slightest bit of attention" to the Committee's plea to allow the
planning process a chance to work. And, in hindsight, it is doubtful
that it ever stood a chance of succeeding. With a dominant timber
production premise and an inherently divisive process of public
participation and decision-making, there was little incentive for any
stakeholder to patiently await the mysterious machinations of the land
and resource planning process. Individuals and groups pursued whatever
forum would give them the greatest advantage; seldom did this advantage
lie within the NFMA process. Appeals and lawsuits were used to gain
leverage over the planning process or preempt it. Some of these appeals
and lawsuits prevailed and caused major changes in national forest
planning and management\--the Northwest Plan for federal forests of the
owl region being the outstanding example.

Others used the Congressional budgeting process to tilt implementation
toward the resources and outputs of most interest. As a result, many
land and resource plans have never been implemented or are only partly
implemented due to lack of budgets. Even when budgets are forthcoming,
however, they often not only lack resources necessary to carry out the
plan, but also allocate funds in a manner that do not reflect the
priorities articulated in the plan. Thus, the budgets often negated the
\"balance\" that had been carefully crafted into many plans, a balance
that was essential to any meaningful implementation of a plan.

Still others attempted to push for new legislation to correct the
imbalances that they found in management. Here the record is meager.
With the exception of a few transient measures like the salvage rider,
Congress in the 23 years since the NFMA have shown little or no
inclination to once again get into the battle over the appropriate uses
of the national forests. Even the short lived salvage rider did not, in
general, tamper with the priorities for use of the national forests.

**Recent Trends and Developments**

As the national forests begin to revise their NFMA land and resource
plans, a number of trends and phenomena have developed that may not have
been foreseen by the developers of NFMA:

1\) There remain deep divisions over the management of the national
forests. National forest planning often times has to proceed in the face
of legitimate, yet divergent interests, often proceeding in many forums
simultaneously. Some have called for Congress to step in and resolve
these disputes through decreeing the dominant uses of the national
forests. Rather than seek a method to achieve a "final solution" to
these deep divisions, though, it might be more realistic and productive
to put in place a process for decision-making that recognizes that deep
divisions are, and always will be, a reality. People's values differ and
what is at stake is great and getting greater. Neither Congress nor
fairy godmothers will ever be able to do away with this fundamental
truth**.**

2\) Ecosystem management, with its emphasis on management across broad
landscapes and sustaining ecological processes has become the management
paradigm of the national forests, raising questions about the
traditional focus on a single owner and single ownership in planning and
on an even-flow of timber as the measure of sustainability.

3\) Protection of fish and wildlife has become a major focus of the
national forests under both the statutes of the Endangered Species Act
and the NFMA. Similarly, protection of clean water resources is now
becoming a focus under the Clean Water Act.

4\) People have become increasingly interested in, and capable of,
sharing stewardship responsibilities for the national forests, breaking
down the traditional division between the FS as stewards and the public
as users.

5\) A multitude of federal, state, and local statutes have been
promulgated that mandate planning processes relative to protection and
use of the environment. As a result, federal, state, and local agencies
often collide as they implement their mandates.

6\) The Forest Service and Congress have continued to budget by
functional area**,** undermining the ability of forests to fully
implement balanced plans.

**Developing new NFMA Regulations and a new Committee of Scientists**

For the last five years the Forest Service has attempted to develop new
planning regulations to address some of these emerging issues and trends
and to reflect the lessons learned from land and resource planning over
the last 15 years. Enough controversy has been raised by this effort
that the Secretary of Agriculture commissioned a new "Committee of
Scientists" to provide technical and scientific guidance for improving
land and resource planning. This advice will inform the development of
new NFMA regulations by the Secretary's Office.

In some ways the new COS is like the last one\--both had to be composed
of scientists outside the Forest Service; both focused on the NFMA. The
last COS had 2 1/2 years to complete their work; this COS had 6 months.
The last COS was helping to invent land and resource planning; this COS
has the advantage of being able to draw on the experience of the last 15
years to reshape planning to the changing times.

**Dreams and Practicality**

The Committee was urged by the Secretary's office to step back and
define a land and resource planning framework that would last a
generation. In some sense to dream a little. Our dreams have been
inspired by the actions of dedicated and resourceful on-the-ground
employees of the Forest Service. While some have understandably become
disillusioned and defensive after years of conflict and impasse, others
have risen to the challenge, experimented and are successfully pursuing
new approaches to planning and management. The lessons of their efforts
provide a glimmer of hope and a foundation of experience upon which COS
has been able to envision and construct a more promising approach to
planning. All the while, COS has tempered its dreams with the
realization that the Forest Service does not need another impossible
mission; our dreams should not translate to Forest Service nightmares.

**The NFMA Regulations as One Piece in the Planning and Management
Puzzle**

In the mid 1970s it was possible to focus on the regulations
implementing NFMA to the exclusion of almost anything else in terms of
guidance for planning the management of the national forests. That is no
longer true. Other planning processes under other statutes, such as the
Endangered Species Act, can have as large an impact on the national
forests and the NFMA mandated planning processes. Other forums, such as
the annual budgeting process in Congress can also have as large an
impact. The additional directive from the courts or the White House can
upset the best-laid plans from a carefully constructed planning process.
Finally, the continued deep disagreements over management of these
forests makes consensus and stability in their management difficult.

Congress could of course pass laws to straighten out this "crazy quilt"
of influences. If the last 20 years is any guide, however, they will not
do so. Nor is it likely that Congressional action would sufficiently
cure the current malaise. Much of the current debate is not about the
merits of existing legislative policies or mandates, but rather *how*
such policies and mandates might most effectively be pursued and
implemented.

Thus, we are left with administrative change and reform as the mechanism
for recognizing and harmonizing these many influences on planning the
future of the national forests. Our assignment deals centrally with one
part of this legal and administrative puzzle\--the regulations
implementing the NFMA. We have attempted to undertake this mission with
an understanding of the broader context in which these regulations sit
and need to look outward to the other processes and forums that
influence the planning and management of these forests. We regard our
work as one piece in a larger puzzle and realize that events elsewhere
can undermine the results of planning. Still, these regulations, when
they work, provide the organizing mechanism for land and resource
planning for the national forests, and, as such, must be the foundation
on which planning for the future of the national forests is built.

**The Social and Organizational Context of Planning**

COS recognizes that it would be doing the Forest Service a disservice if
it proposed a new planning template that failed to recognize the context
to which it would be applied. We are not proceeding with a blank slate.
Instead, there are some very real challenges, as well as important
opportunities, that must be recognized, accommodated and capitalized
upon if this second round of planning is to be given the greatest chance
of succeeding. In this respect, we are at a distinct advantage relative
to the first COS. Not only do we have almost twenty years of experience
from which to draw regarding on-the-ground consequences of the first
round of planning, we also have almost twenty years of experience that
provide insight into how the Forest Service as an organization functions
in the context of a comprehensive land and resource management planning
process. Furthermore, we also have twenty years of experience that have
very vividly defined the social context of planning. The Forest Service
does not function in a vacuum but rather in a very diverse, dynamic and
engaged social context that must be acknowledged and accommodated.
Recognizing the context \-- both social and organizational \-- has
grounded our expectations and the care with which we have structured the
proposed planning process. It has also given us an opportunity to
recognize important opportunities that can facilitate a more effective
and meaningful second round of planning.

*The Social Context of National Forest Planning*

The past twenty years of NFMA planning, while creating a base of
knowledge and data about each national forest, has at the same time
contributed to a social context that must be considered as this second
round of planning proceeds. There are several factors within the social
context that *constrain* effective planning and that must be
acknowledged in the development of a different process:

> • there is pervasive distrust of the agency and the process
>
> • public participants are burned out, wary, fatigued, disillusioned
>
> • the incentives of the previous planning efforts often promoted
> adversarial behavior, in effect inverting the \"normal distribution
> curve\" by encouraging extreme position-taking and discouraging
> collaboration and problem-solving

At the same time, there are numerous *opportunities* inherent in the
social context that provide a foundation upon which more effective
planning may be fostered:

> • the American people are anxious and willing to be a part of
> management of their national forests
>
> • effective and innovative models of collaboration and public
> involvement do exist
>
> • there is a wealth of expertise, knowledge and skills within society
> that can provide great assistance to national forest management
>
> • the American people want to be stewards; to have an active hand
> management
>
> • there is a growing understanding and appreciation of the critical
> importance of well-managed watersheds to communities capturing their
> attention and concern
>
> • increasing recreation is both an added demand on forest resources as
> well as an opportunity to educate and engage the American people in
> the management of resources they clearly care about

*The Organizational Context of National Forest Planning*

What these social contextual factors highlight is that national forest
planning and management neither can nor should be the sole preserve of
the Forest Service. In order to bridge sources of knowledge and
capabilities; to effectively educate and learn; to resolve disputes; to
credibly problem-solve; and, to foster and restore trust so that
national forest management is a common endeavor rather than a
battlefield; national forest planning needs to be structured in a manner
that meaningfully and openly engages the American people. It must be
structured with an awareness of these social constraints and
opportunities. Such a process, however, must also be developed
recognizing the challenges and opportunities presented by the Forest
Service as a large bureaucratic organization.

There are numerous *challenges* posed by the existing organizational
context of planning, some of which include:

-   many planners are burned out, wary, fatigued and disillusioned with
    the process; consequently, planning is disdained by many in the
    agency

-   there are tensions between \"managers\" and \"scientists\"

-   linkages between planning and management are unclear (planning is
    viewed to be an entirely separate function from management)

-   a customer service orientation \["our public and the people we
    serve"\] re-enforces an "us" vs. "them" relationship with the
    non-agency world

-   common personnel issues \[transfers/retirements\] undermine
    productive working relationships

-   more integrative and innovative planning approaches are difficult
    when bridging programmatic/budgetary areas

-   there are few rewards or incentives that encourage more effective
    and adaptive planning behavior \[and, furthermore, innovation is
    believed to be punished\]

-   learning from problems and failures, as with most organizations, is
    not a strong suit in the agency

    At the same time, there are numerous *opportunities* inherent in the
    organizational context that provide a foundation upon which more
    effective planning may be fostered:

-   Forest Service employees, for the most part, are driven by a
    profound commitment to the resource; inherent in this commitment is
    a general desire to do "the right thing" for the resource and to
    capitalize on up-to-date knowledge and understanding

-   some models of effective planning do exist; innovative, risk-taking
    Forest Service employees do exist and have tried new approaches and
    have succeeded; their efforts provide insight, direction and hope

-   there is a strong desire among many to approach planning differently
    given their intense frustration with the current process

-   there is an organizational structure in place that can accommodate
    and support planning at different levels: large scale assessments,
    landscape level plans, etc.

-   other resource agencies are facing similar challenges and hence are
    at a point in their histories where they are more willing to engage
    in greater coordination, communication and collaboration that will
    improve their ability to achieve their objectives while, at the same
    time, enhancing management of national forests and grasslands

-   tools are now available \[GIS, remote sensing, etc.\] that can
    accommodate planning and coordination at varying scales

    **Historical Uses and Current Conditions as a Context for Planning**

    The COS also recognizes that the history of management and the
    current condition of the national forest also need to be understood
    to fashion effective planning regulations.

    *The National Forests: A Long History of Use*

    The long-term economic contributions of the forest reserves were

    recognized from the very beginning. Irrigation districts in the
    West,

    wanting to be assured of reliable flows for their fields, pressed
    Congress

    for protective legislation, which was achieved in the Creative Act
    of

    1891\. Today farmers continue to rely upon clean, reliable flows
    from

    national forest watersheds, which comprise most of the high country
    in the

    West.

    Commercial timber production was recognized as the second purpose,

    in addition to watershed protection, in the 1897 Organic Act. Timber

    harvesting remained low until World War II, soared during the
    post-War

    boom, and has receded since the late 1980s (Figure 2b-1). Previous
    declines were largely the result of market forces; the recent
    decline is due to the increased emphasis on protection of species
    and ecosystems combined with the realization that intensive timber
    management is not always compatible with these other values.

    l T T T

    l T

    Harv l T T

    vol l T

    l T T T T T T T

    l\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

    1890 1940 1990

    Figure 2b-1 Total timber harvest on the national forests over time

    Many other uses occur on the national forests and grasslands. Like
    timber harvest, recreation use on the lands and waters of the
    national forests and grasslands exploded after Word War II (Figure
    2b-3) and has continued to grow and is now the focus of a
    multi-billion dollar industry. Indeed, most of the nations ski areas
    are located in the national forests.

    R

    R

    R

    l R

    l R

    l R

    RVDs l R

    l R R R R R R

    l\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

    1890 1940 1990

    Figure 2b-3 Recreation use on the national forests over time

    Grazing of domestic livestock takes place on more than half of all

    National Forest System lands and has long been associated with the
    rangelands of the national forests\--in many cases, the use predates
    establishment of national forests. Grazing use, measured in AUMs,
    peaked just after the turn of the century and then declined to lower
    levels over many decades (Figure 2b-2).

    l G

    l G G G G

    AUMs l G G G G

    l G G G G

    l

    l\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

    1890 1940 1990

    Figure 2b-2 Grazing on the national forests over time

    Hardrock mining and oil and gas production are found on nearly every
    national forest and proceeds as a priority use under the 1872 Mining
    Law. Mineral leases for oil and gas work under another set of
    institutions that gives the Forest Service control over their issue.
    Like timber and recreation, the number of leases on the national
    forests expanded greatly after World War II.

    The economic value produced by the different uses of the national
    forests is the subject of some dispute. Recent analysis by the
    Forest Service suggests that recreation produces the majority of
    economic value from use of the national forests and downstream water
    use provides the second most significant amount. Most of that value
    is implied from the use levels, since recreation on the national
    forests generally occurs with only a nominal charge at most and
    downstream water use occurs without charge. For a long time, timber
    harvest has provided the vast majority of revenue obtained from
    national forest use (Figure 2b-5) although that revenue has declined
    as the overall sale level has declined and the harvest, in support
    of ecosystem management, have shifted to smaller, less valuable
    trees. The Forest Service has acknowledged that the cost of timber
    sales, including the in lieu payments to counties drawn from the
    sales, has recently exceeded their revenue. Total revenue has
    declined with the loss of timber receipts, as the revenue other
    uses, especially from recreation, has not increased sufficiently to
    offset the loss.

    l

    l T T

    l T T T T

    l T T

    l T

    l T T

    Gross l

    Rev l T

    l R R

    l R

    l R R

    l\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_G G G G G\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

    1950 1990

    Figure 2b-4. Revenue from use of the national forests over time
    (Timber, Recreation, Grazing)

    The reduction in timber revenue has been felt throughout the agency.
    Since the national forests have traditionally funded much of their
    operation with the timber management budget, a major contraction in
    funds and national forest workforce has occurred throughout the West
    in the last few years. As discussed above, Congress has not been
    disposed to fund other activities, such as wildlife, stream
    improvement, or recreation, at anything approaching the funding
    levels that previously went into timber sales. Without an
    alternative revenue source from use of the national forests, such as
    from charges for recreation use, or agreement by the major interest
    groups on funding needs, it is difficult to visualize adequate
    funding in the near future.

    At the same time as revenues are falling, costs to undertake actions
    on the national forests are increasing. Implementing ecosystem
    management has raised the expense of activities with its associated
    need for more analysis and the involvement of more specialists.
    Also, as the interdisciplinary teams search for acceptable ways to
    meet the tenants of ecosystem management, they often have to take a
    number of runs at any particular action before they "get it right".
    In sum, the Forest Service is caught in a revenue/cost squeeze that
    will most probably be a fact of life for the foreseeable future.

    *Current Conditions*

    Many material benefits have been produced since the end of World War
    II, when extractive uses of the national forests sharply escalated
    as discussed above, but there has been a cost, in many cases, in
    terms of the physical condition of the lands and waters of the
    National Forest System. By many measures, we worked these lands
    pretty hard over the last 50 years, especially in the West.

    The Western National Forests, by and large, were reserved from the
    public domain and became national forests before much activity
    occurred, except grazing of livestock. The eastern National Forests,
    on the other hand, were, by and large, purchased by the Forest
    Service from 1910 to 1950 after harvest by private landowners. The
    discussion below applies most directly to the West where most of the
    National Forests lay. In the East, by comparison, much of the land
    is in better ecological condition than when acquired.

    There are more trees in the national forests today, but the number
    of large trees has declined significantly\--they have been the
    target of timber harvest until recently. This diminution of
    old-growth stands has caused a loss of essential habitat for many
    species and of the aesthetic and spiritual qualities of these
    ancient forests, which are valued by

    many people. Growth now exceeds harvest which could allow rebuilding
    of desired characteristics over time.

    Other management activities have also affected the condition of the
    forests and grasslands.. Replanting after harvest has been generally
    successful, but the plantations so created often lack the diversity
    of tree species now sought under ecosystem management. Policies to
    suppress all fires, and timber harvest practices, altered the
    natural disturbance regime and greatly increased the risk of
    catastrophic fires in many places.

    The agency\'s extensive road system, much of it build to facilitate
    timber harvest, opened the national forests up to recreation, but
    also took a toll in terms of erosion, landslides and the destruction
    of riparian habitat. Remaining roadless areas have assumed
    increasing importance as refugia for fish and wildlife.

    As the national forests have increasingly become the nation's
    playground, recreational activities have left their mark. The vast
    road network allowed significantly increased traffic and
    opportunities for off-road use, with many and varied impacts on
    wildlife; the clustering of recreation use in stream corridors and
    lakes put enormous pressure on fragile resources. "Loving the
    forests to death" has become an increasingly common refrain.

    Rangeland condition, overall, is on a recovering trend from its
    severely degraded state at the turn of the century. Still, problems
    remain. Exotics have taken over much of the upland range and
    riparian areas are degraded in many places. Cattle use of streamside
    areas remains a flashpoint in the debate over species and water
    quality protection.

    Reservoirs and water diversion, grazing, and mining have affected
    streamflow patterns on many streams and rivers within the national
    forests and grasslands. Mining has been an especially nettlesome
    cause of pollution.

    Perhaps the most notable effect of the intensive use of National
    Forest

    System lands has been the increase in the number of species whose
    continued presence on the national forests is no longer secure. Many
    causes can be invoked to esplain this situation including the uses
    metioned above, settlement of adjacent lands, and introduction of
    exotics. The seriousness of the situation is compounded because the
    federal lands are expected to form the first line of defense in
    protecting endangered and threatened species, yet there has been a
    continuing need to invoke the Endangered Species Act. This loss of
    biological diversity is a matter of grave and overriding concern in
    evaluating the current state of the national forests and grasslands.

    Although ecological conditions, according to many measures, have
    declined in the National Forest System, those lands generally remain
    less disturbed by human influence than the surrounding lands.
    Settlement, ranching, farming, and logging

    over the past century have transformed the private forests and
    rangelands of the United States. Rapid development continues in many
    parts of the country.

    Many rural areas near national forests and grasslands also have
    experienced

    population growth, with a sharp increase in second homes and a
    corresponding surge in recreation use on the adjacent national
    forests. We expect these trends to continue. We also expect that the
    national forests will increasingly be asked to form the backbone of
    regional conservation strategies so that activities on private land
    do not need to be sharply curtailed to protect species and
    ecosystems.

    **Conclusion**

    In 1979, the USFS embarked on a journey that no other resource
    agency had ever before undertaken. They began a comprehensive
    planning approach for the 191 million acre national forest estate
    that was to look to the future, but provide for the multiple
    resource needs of the present. It was to involve the public and
    maintain the long-term sustainability of the resource base. There
    were theories about how the agency should proceed, many developed
    without consideration or full knowledge of political, social and
    organizational realities.

    Regardless, well-intended Forest Service employees were thrown into
    the fray and most did their utmost to make the regulatory guidance
    work. It hasn't been easy for them and it certainly hasn't been fun.
    But this COS has been humbled by the continued devotion of so many
    on-the-ground employees of the Forest Service who have persevered
    despite the shortcomings of the process and the conflict it
    engendered.

    COS is optimistic. Yes, there are problems to address and history to
    overcome; there is no question but that the Forest Service needs a
    significantly restructured and redirected planning process. At the
    same time, however, it is also clear that it has the capabilities to
    follow through. The people are well-meaning and dedicated and most,
    within the agency and within the American people, are anxious for
    direction for what they might do differently in the future. COS is
    honored to have been asked to help with this task.

    **CHAPTER ONE**

    **SUSTAINING THE LAND, ECONOMIES, AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES**

    Today, sustainability is widely recognized as the overarching
    objective of land and resource stewardship. In its simplest terms,
    sustainability means to maintain or prolong. The 1987 Brundtland
    Commission Report (The World Commission on Environment and
    Development, "Our Common Future") elaborated upon the shorthand
    definition by articulating both the need for current productivity
    and the physical and moral imperative of intergenerational equity:
    the goal of sustainability is to "meet the needs of the present
    without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
    own needs." Further, sustainability in this modern sense has three
    aspects --- ecological, economic, and social. The integrity of
    ecological systems must be considered first for they are necessary
    prerequisites for strong, productive economies and enduring human
    communities. Most basically, we compromise human welfare if we fail
    to sustain vital, functioning ecosystems.

    Sustainability is sometimes criticized as being so vague that it
    eludes definition. To be sure, it is impossible to define
    sustainability in a generic fashion that applies across the board to
    all natural systems. That is not, however, how we approach the term
    in this report.

    We view sustainability as operating on two levels. First,
    sustainability has great appeal as a broad societal objective --- as
    a symbol of the fundamental values we hold as a people. The concept
    has this acceptability because it possesses at once the
    philosophical and moral force of fairness to future generations as
    well as the practical edge of being necessary for our economic and
    social well-being. Thus, sustainability embodies a shared national
    goal, as do democracy, freedom, and equality. Such formulations ---
    idealistic and never fully attainable, yet undeniable in their
    essential truths --- are critical to setting an agreed-upon context
    for making public policy on difficult and complex issues.

    Sustainability also operates on a much more concrete level. While it
    may be an empty intellectual exercise to try to define
    sustainability in an abstract way that would apply to all lands, it
    is entirely realistic to apply the principle to the specific
    circumstances of a particular geographic area. Thus, we view
    sustainability, in addition to its value as a broad societal
    aspiration, as applying in varying and particular ways to real
    places --- to actual communities, economies, forests, watersheds,
    and rangeland. Different ecosystems and regimes will have different
    ecological, economic, and social touchstones --- different things to
    sustain. The key is to develop land stewardship policies and
    practices, applying the principles of sustainability, to fit the
    needs of such places.

    Significantly, the application of sustainability to a specific place
    will change over time. Policy will evolve according to natural
    dynamics (fires, floods, landslides, and other natural events) and
    societal events (economic upturns or downturns, technological
    innovations, and population patterns). Thus, a working
    sustainability must adapt to change depending upon actual changes in
    the land and the human communities.

    Seen in this light, the application of sustainability --- which will
    vary according to the place and time --- becomes tangible and
    definable.

    We have seen recent examples of the concrete application of
    sustainability. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, plans have
    been put into place to sustain, among other things, grizzly bears,
    wolves, and bison; the lodgepole pine forests that have built up
    dangerously high fuel loads resulting from decades of fire
    suppression; magnificent geothermal resources; and the economies of
    local tourist communities. In the Pacific Northwest, where citizens
    and their governments have engaged in perhaps the most ambitious
    natural resources program ever undertaken, the application of
    sustainability is different because the place is different. The
    goals in the Northwest Forest Plan and other programs have included
    sustaining the Northern spotted owl; the Pacific salmon; the
    hydropower generated by dams on the Columbia and other rivers; the
    splendor of the region's ancient forests; and the economies of
    timber and fishing communities by trying to assure a lower, but
    reasonably reliable, level of timber production (mostly from private
    lands) and salmon harvests important to the well-being of those
    communities. This report will allude to other examples of
    sustainability as a working, real-world policy.

    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

    The term sustainability has come into widespread use in relatively
    recent times, but the core value of intergenerational equity ---
    providing for current economic use while assuring the productivity
    of the land for future generations --- has long played an important
    role in natural resources law and policy. This is especially true
    with respect to the National Forest System.

    From the beginning, the laws and policies governing the natural
    forests and grasslands have evidenced deep-running currents of the
    policy of sustainability. When Congress first authorized presidents
    to set aside forest reserves, it acted in response to petitions from
    local farmers and towns that wanted to be assured of reliable water
    flows. Thus, watershed protection was the dominant purpose behind
    the Creative Act of 1891. In the Organic Act of 1897, Congress
    decided to permit logging in the forest reserves and provided that a
    purpose of the reserves was to "furnish a continuous supply of
    timber." (16 U.S.C. § 475). The first-listed purpose in the 1897 Act
    remained watershed protection, or "securing favorable conditions of
    water flows." (*Id.*)

    These early, formative years of the national forests were
    idealistic, forward-looking times. The creation of a system of
    natural lands, removed from homesteading and permanently dedicated
    to the national interest, was itself a dramatic act. Legislators and
    administrators looked to the work of the rising scientific
    community, especially George Perkins Marsh's *Man and Nature*,
    published in 1864, where Marsh expounded at length on the dangers of
    soil erosion and the importance of forest lands as watersheds.
    Senator Algernon Paddock, one of the most influential legislators
    during the passage of the 1891 and 1897 Acts, emphasized that "the
    laying waste of the forests of a country rudely disturbs that
    harmony between nature's forces which must be maintained if the
    earth is to be kept habitable for its teeming millions." (Senate
    Report No. 1002 (1892)). President Theodore Roosevelt championed the
    conservation cause, which emphasized the needs of tomorrow, and
    directed his attention to the national forests. His executive orders
    reserved nearly three-fourths of all land in the National Forests
    System today. In discussing the timber reserves, Roosevelt wrote:

    \[O\]ur entire purpose in this forest reserve policy is to keep the
    land for the benefit of the actual settler and home-maker, to
    further his interests in every way, and, while using the natural
    resources of the country for the benefit of the present generation,
    also to use them in such manner as to keep them unimpaired for the
    benefit of the children now growing up to inherit the land. (Quoted
    in Henry, *Power and Responsibility,* (1961)).

    The idealism that so characterized the conservation movement burned
    hottest in the Forest Service itself. In 1905, Congress transferred
    the forests to the Department of Agriculture under the supervision
    of Gifford Pinchot, one of the most influential figures of the 20th
    century in natural resources policy. Pinchot was utilitarian and
    believed that the forests should be utilized for the benefit of the
    American people, especially local communities. Yet the level of
    development under his watch paled in comparison to the magnitude of
    extraction, especially in timber harvesting, that the National
    Forest System would see in the post-World War II era.

    Rather, Pinchot was adamant that the national forests, while they
    should be used, must be managed conservatively --- sustainability in
    today's terms --- for the future. He declared that every federal
    land manager was "a trustee of the public property." (*The Fight for
    Conservation* (1910)). In words that presaged the notion of
    intergenerational equity embedded in the Brundtland Commission
    Report, Pinchot wrote that conservation "recognizes the right of the
    present generation to use what it needs and all it needs of the
    natural resources now available, but it recognizes equally our
    obligation so to use what we need that our descendents shall not be
    deprived of what they need." (*Id.*)

    The theme of obligations to the future was woven through the
    influential Pinchot Letter of 1905 --- still considered one of the
    Forest Service's organic documents. Pinchot exhorted all Forest
    Service employees that "the permanence of the resources is therefore
    indispensable to continued prosperity, and the policy of this
    Department for their protection and use will invariably be guided by
    this fact, always bearing in mind that the *conservative use* of
    these resources in no way conflicts with their permanent value."
    (*The Principal Laws Relating to the Forest Service* (1964)). The
    Pinchot Letter concluded with his admonition that "where conflicting
    interests must be reconciled the question will always be decided
    from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in
    the long run." (*Id*.)

    The official commitment to sustaining lands in the National Forest
    Systems continued. The Weeks Act of 1911 authorized the acquisition
    of national forest lands in the East for watershed protection. The
    1944 Sustained Yield Act had the following preamble:

    An Act to Promote sustained-yield forest management in order
    thereby (a) to stabilize communities, forest industries, employment,
    and taxable forest wealth; (b) to assure a continuous and ample
    supply of forest products; and (c) to secure the benefits of forests
    in regulation of water supply and stream flow, prevention of soil
    erosion, amelioration of climate, and preservation of wildlife.
    (P.L. 78-273).

    The Multiple-Use, Sustained Yield Act of 1960 also emphasized
    conservation for the future by providing for the "achievement and
    maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic
    output of the various renewable resources of the national forests
    without impairment of the productivity of the land." (16 U.S.C. §
    531(b)).

    The National Forest Management Act of 1976 included several
    requirements protecting watersheds and wildlife and provided for the
    protection of the diversity of plant and animal communities. In the
    NFMA, Congress found that the Forest Service has "both a
    responsibility and an opportunity to be a leader in assuring that
    the Nation maintains a natural resource conservation posture that
    will meet the requirements of our people in perpetuity." (16 U.S.C.
    § 1600(6)).

    In addition to these statutes, which apply specifically to the
    National Forest System, there are many general laws that also bear
    upon the Forest Service's stewardship. They, too, regularly evoke
    the theme of sustainability. Thus, the National Environmental Policy
    Act declares it the policy of Congress to "fulfill the social,
    economic, and other requirements of present and future generations
    of Americans" (42 U.S.C. § 4331(a)) and to "fulfill the
    responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment
    for succeeding generations." (42 U.S.C. § 4331(b). The Clean Water
    Act provides that "the objective of this Act is to restore and
    maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
    Nation's waters" (33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The National Wild and Scenic
    Rivers Act protects rivers "for the benefit and enjoyment of present
    and future generations" (16 U.S.C. § 1271) and the Wilderness Act
    announces "the policy of Congress to secure for the American people
    of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring
    resource of wilderness." (16 U.S.C. § 1131(a)). The Endangered
    Species Act, which has become a central part of the day-to-day work
    of the national forests and grasslands, evidences a profound
    national commitment to the sustainability of animal and plant
    species.

    In recent years, federal sustainability policy has evolved in
    concert with the policies of other nations. The 1992 Earth Summit
    (The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development),
    which took place in Rio de Janeiro, recognized the importance of
    sustainable management of natural resources. In 1995, the Santiago
    Declaration, of which the United States is a party, was accompanied
    by criteria and indicators (developed through the Montreal Process")

    for sustainable forest management. These criteria and indicators are
    an important statement on forest sustainability and one goal of this
    report is to recommend procedures that will allow for the criteria
    and indicators to be integrated into the stewardship of the national
    forests in an effective and efficient way.

    Our country then, has been committed to sustainable management of
    our public lands for over a century. In 1995, in a message to Forest
    Service employees, Jack Ward Thomas, one of the nation's
    conservation leaders and Forest Service Chief, encapsulated this
    long development and demonstrated the leadership role that the
    Forest Service has played and should continue to play in achieving
    sustainability:

    Our land ethic is to: Promote the sustainability of ecosystems by
    ensuring their health, diversity and productivity.

    This ethic provides the constancy of purpose and direction that
    permeates all we dream, do and say. Our land ethic has evolved
    through the thinking and experience of Forest Service pioneers such
    as Gifford Pinchot, Arthur Carhart, Bob Marshall, Aldo Leopold, and
    others. Growing understanding of the complexity of ecosystems has
    expanded thinking on sustainability --- from emphasis on sustained
    yields of products to sustaining the ecosystems that provide a
    variety of benefits. Increased understanding of ecosystem function
    will demand rigorous research and continuing evolution on management
    concepts and actions.

    Through ecosystem sustainability, present and future generations
    will reap the benefits that healthy, diverse, and productive
    ecosystems provide. Our ethic includes the active use of ecosystems,
    through both preservation and manipulation to gain these benefits
    --- so long as this use does not unduly impact ecosystem
    sustainability. ("Message from Jack Ward Thomas" (1995)).

    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

    The complex framework of statutes that governs the Forest Service,
    then, has many strands that speak directly to ecological, economic,
    and social sustainability. Yet the Forest Service retains broad
    authority to articulate its mission and set priorities, as Pinchot
    did and as later Chiefs did as well. Even now, more than a century
    after the passage of the Organic Act, perhaps the fundamental charge
    to the agency is the expansive grant in the 1897 Act to regulate
    "occupancy and use" on the national forests and grasslands (16
    U.S.C. § 551). The courts have always given the agency latitude,
    under that statute and the Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of
    1960, to chart the course that policy should take. With respect to
    the critical idea of sustainability, what actions has the agency
    taken in the past? What has been the role of science? How can a
    Committee of Scientists best offer advice on the courses that might
    be taken in the future?

    Originally, the Forest Service administered the national forests
    conservatively. The timber harvest remained low, averaging about one
    billion board feet annually. In his first year as administrator of
    the national forests, Pinchot adopted a grazing code to reduce
    overgrazing and soil loss. Considerable research was done on
    silviculture and watershed protection. In 1924, the Forest Service,
    spearheaded by Aldo Leopold, created the first
    government-established wilderness area in the world. In the 1930s,
    under Robert Marshall's leadership, the agency expanded its
    wilderness system and recreation policies.

    After World War II, administration of the national forests changed
    radically. By the mid-1960s, the allowable harvest reached eleven
    billion board feet --- more than ten times the historical level. It
    is important to appreciate that the Forest Service viewed its
    policies during this era as achieving sustainability. The annual
    harvest, high-yield though it may have been, was premised on "even
    flow": in spite of the intensive logging, the reasoning went, the
    forests could grow more board feet than were being harvested. This
    high-yield timber production endured well into the 1980s and
    dominated policy in the National Forest System.

    Almost unnoticed, beginning in the 1960s, scientists had begun
    digging deeper. What are the ecological effects, they began to ask,
    of the level of commodity production that the Forest Service had
    committed itself to?

    Various scientific disciplines examined the ways in which the
    fundamental processes of ecosystem integrity were being changed.
    Hydrologists studied stream flow patterns and the effects of
    increased silt loads. Range scientists researched the impacts of
    grazing, logging, and water diversions on riparian zones. Foresters
    increasingly looked at the whole forest, not just timber harvest
    volumes. The research of fire ecologists showed how the fire
    suppression policies had altered the natural disturbance cycle. The
    historic spotted owl research began in the early 1970s and wildlife
    biologists conducted many other studies on species extinction and
    viability. In this respect, the original Committee of Scientists in
    1979 made an historic contribution through its regulation protecting
    species viability, which implemented the NFMA's provision on
    diversity of plant and animal communities.

    A new and deeper way of looking at natural systems emerged. No
    longer would the productivity of natural systems be defined solely
    by their commodity outputs --- board feet of timber, animal unit
    months of grazing forage, acre-feet of water diverted, and kilo
    watts of electricity. Today, in addition to those measures,
    productivity is measured in terms of ecosystem services, including
    clean water and air, fertile soils, and diversity of plant and
    animal species. Further, a new respect for the natural dynamics of
    ecosystems developed: land management should account for uncertainty
    by acknowledging that planning and implementation will be influenced
    by natural but unpredictable events such as wildfires, drought,
    floods, hurricanes, widespread occurrence of insect and disease, and
    the introduction and spread of non-native species. The focus of the
    scientific community --- and, increasingly, of on-the-ground land
    management --- has become overall ecosystem integrity.

    In a complementary set of developments beginning in the 1970s, the
    public became involved in forest and rangeland policy as never
    before. Citizens insisted upon greater recognition of recreation,
    wildlife, and the beauty and spirituality that also are a part of
    whole forests and rangeland systems. The public concerns and
    scientific advances became embodied in statutes such as the National
    Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the
    Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, and in many agency
    regulations.

    These were fundamental changes. They amounted to a redefinition of
    watersheds, forests, and rangelands --- a new conception of what we
    are trying to sustain. By digging deep, scientists of the past two
    generations had helped to redefine the objectives of land
    stewardship. Importantly, in the process, they brought an
    understanding of the fundamental ecological processes that make
    possible the multiple-use benefits and community values that the
    public expects to be produced for the public lands.

    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

    We believe then, that the two guiding stars of stewardship in the
    national forests and grasslands are sustainability and the
    recognition that these are the people's lands. The remainder of this
    report is dedicated to a discussion of what sustainability means in
    the context of stewardship of the National Forest System and how the
    Forest Service might, in practical ways, organize planning and
    management to achieve it.

    7/6/98

    **CHAPTER TWO**

    **IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABILITY**

    One challenge of stewardship of the national forests and grasslands
    is to translate the broad-gauged policy of sustainability into
    specific planning and management practices that will provide
    long-term ecological, economic, and social benefits. This chapter
    defines the characteristics of these three aspects of
    sustainability. It also explores the ways in which the three are
    interrelated. Ultimately, it suggests ways in which we can measure
    sustainability, determine when the objectives of sustainability have
    been attained, and fully incorporate these concepts into decision
    making.

    **ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY**

    In an ecological context, sustainability refers to maintaining
    ecosystem structure, composition, and processes over time and space.
    NFMA\'s goals of maintaining species diversity and productivity
    should be broadly viewed in terms of these three aspects of
    sustainability. That is, species and primary productivity can only
    be preserved by maintaining the structure, composition, and
    processes characteristic of an area. The concepts of composition,
    process, and structure can be viewed as a triangle with a particular
    corner receiving greater emphasis depending on the management at
    hand (Figure 1). In focusing on one particular aspect of the
    triangle, however, the other corners cannot be forgotten and may
    change in importance as the management situation changes. This
    perspective on ecological sustainability is entirely consistence
    with other approaches that categorized attributes of sustainability
    (such as the Santiago criteria, Table X).

    Sustainability must be evaluated along a continuum rather than
    viewed as a single target value. The range of structure,
    composition, and processes in an ecosystem required for its
    sustainability must be interpreted in light of the natural and
    historical variation for the region. The knowledge that a threshold
    level may exist below which a \"threatened\" component of the system
    is at risk means that sustainability must receive stewardship focus
    at all times and locations.

    Assessment activities must balance short-term gain and opportunities
    that provide for long-term benefits. These tradeoffs become a
    concern when a system is near a sustainability threshold or when
    impacts accumulate over time. Difficult decisions may be necessary
    when a system is close to a point where the structure, composition,
    or processes of the system are at risk of undergoing fundamental
    changes that may only be repairable over the long-term, or at great
    expense. In these cases, attention must be paid to that part of the
    triangle that may have the greatest long-term effects on
    sustainability. An example occurs in the southwestern forests where
    fire suppression has resulted in extensive areas with massive fuel
    loads. The risks are high that a large-scale fire may cause
    long-term loss of species and significant changes in ecosystem
    properties. Therefore, in the near-term steps should be taken to
    move the system closer to one that can retain the full suite of
    structure, composition and process features that are more typical of
    this forest system. In some cases, to achieve sustainability goals
    may require management actions that upset the short-term stability
    of the system. \<\<Sidebar A\>\>

    A. Components of Ecological Sustainability

    \(1\) Composition

    Composition refers to genetic, species and ecosystem diversity.
    [Genetic diversity]{.underline} is the degree of variation in
    heritable characteristics within and among individual organisms and
    populations. [Species diversity]{.underline} is variation in the
    number of different kinds of species present within a given area.
    [Landscape diversity]{.underline} is the variety of vegetation
    community types\--including their identity, distribution,
    juxtaposition, and seral stage\--evaluated at the landscape scale.
    Thus, composition is important not just at the genetic and species
    level, but also for the processes and structures that support
    diversity (such as forest canopies and belowground habitats).
    Previously, management guidelines focused primarily on individual
    species. A species-by-species approach to assessing biodiversity
    status, however, is impractical to implement because there are so
    many species (including plants, fungi, vertebrates and
    invertebrates). An extensive, ecosystem-based approach to assessing
    biodiversity is more cost effective both in terms of time and
    finances. Transitioning to a broader approach to assessing
    biological diversity requires identifying and measuring variables
    that allow reliable inferences about ecosystem composition \-- that
    is, a strong focus on habitat at both local and landscape scales.

    Habitat by itself, however, is sometimes an insufficient surrogate
    to predict wildlife populations because the presence of suitable
    habitat, by itself, does not ensure that any particular species will
    be present or reproduce. Therefore, continuing assessment of
    population status based on both population dynamics and habitat
    conditions must be developed and frequently validated. Because of
    limited time and funds, however, it may only be possible to assess
    the status of a relatively few \"focal\" species. The choice of
    focal species should be based primarily on the information they
    provide about the integrity of the larger ecosystem to which they
    belong. Additional candidates for focal species include those that
    have viability concerns, are threatened and endangered, occupy rare
    habitats, are of high management or public interest, are game
    species, or are indicator species.

    \(2\) Process

    Fundamental ecological processes such as energy capture through
    photosynthesis, energy flow, nutrient cycling, water movement,
    disturbance frequency and intensity and succession all support
    ecosystem functions. By sustaining the main components of ecosystem
    function the system gains resilience -- the ability to maintain and
    propagate itself even in the face of disturbance. The potential
    renewal and continuing productivity of the ecosystem includes its
    ability to produce \"outputs\", be they pure water, wood, fertile
    soil, riparian habitat, or viable wildlife populations. Potential is
    key because it makes explicit the option for alternative conditions.

    The biotic components of ecosystems have evolved in the context of
    environmental change, triggered by natural disturbance processes.
    Disturbances such as fire or wind-throw, for example, are natural
    and integral processes of many ecosystems. Disturbances often move
    ecosystems back to earlier successional stages, stimulating renewal
    processes and short-term increases in productivity. Large-scale
    disturbance may move an ecosystem to a new system state from which
    it may, or may not, return to its pre-disturbance condition.
    Therefore, one goal of management is to mimic those natural
    disturbance processes that allow the system to return to its
    original state, or move it to a more desirable state. The
    similarities, and differences, between human-induced and natural
    disturbance processes are poorly known, and constitute an active
    area of scientific research. Despite this uncertainty, managing so
    as to mimic those disturbance processes that sustain ecosystems
    through time, without surpassing the adaptational limits of the
    biota, remains an essential goal.

    \(3\) Structure

    By structure we mean the physical geometry of the environment
    arising from biogenic and geologic processes and existing at all
    spatial scales. The structural aspects of sustainability exist at
    many spatial scales and include both biological and physical
    attributes of sites and landscapes. Structure can be of biogenic
    origin, for example, large trees, fish carcasses, and coarse woody
    debris on forest floors, as well as geologic, for example,
    mountains, canyons, unconstrained rivers, pools and riffles. In
    general, landscape structure includes the size, shape, and spatial
    relationships of land-cover types. The sizes, shapes, connectivity,
    and patterns of interspersion of habitats across a landscape
    influence the kinds of organisms that can exist in a landscape
    (including their movement patterns, interactions, and influence over
    such ecosystem processes as decomposition, pollination, and nutrient
    fluxes). For example, the connectivity of similar patches can
    determine the ability of an animal to move across the landscape.
    This movement can entail roaming within an animal\'s home range,
    seasonal migration, dispersal of young, or a change in geographic
    range subsequent to environmental disturbance. Some habitats, such
    as bodies of water or riparian corridors, are small and
    discontinuous, but nevertheless have ecological impacts that greatly
    exceed their spatial extent.

    The variability in physical composition and thus structural
    diversity \-- especially of soil, water, and air \-- both constrain
    and provide opportunities for biological diversity. For example, a
    natural watershed has many habitats, such as alluvial soils, steep
    slopes, deep pools, shallow riffles, and waterfalls, which support a
    diverse biological system. In contrast, damming a river to create a
    reservoir, or diverting water from its natural channel, may
    eliminate or greatly compromise habitat diversity. Landscape
    structural diversity may require the retention of natural
    disturbances such as fire, flood, and wind throw. Therefore,
    planners should consider the larger physical landscape\--its
    historical legacy, its current condition, and its biological
    potential\--both within and outside of the national forests, and the
    ability of species to respond adaptively. The necessary data should
    be collected in the regional and watershed assessments and
    considered in the large landscape and small landscape planning
    processes.

    B. Implementing Ecological Sustainability.

    What are the implications of planning for sustainability on National
    Forests? First, ecological sustainability should be interpreted
    broadly. Planners need to look at the land in a large landscape
    context, including lands and communities beyond the boundaries of
    the national forests. Second, the characteristics of the landscape
    and how people interact with, and what they expect from, the land
    must be assessed. For example, watersheds provide a link to social
    and cultural issues, and most people develop a sense of place that
    relates to the watershed and its defining geographic features. At
    this stage the planner first asks if the human uses of the land
    appear compatible with a goal of sustainability. To reliably answer
    this question requires an emphasis on assessment and monitoring.

    Third, national forests are open systems, affected by land-use
    outside of forest boundaries. Therefore, assessment and monitoring
    must be consistent with other agency programs. This approach
    requires a high degree of interagency collaboration, consistency in
    documentation and measurement standards across public and private
    lands, and a spirit of collaboration to solve shared environmental
    problems.

    Fourth, for the foreseeable future, decisions on appropriate
    management of natural resources will be made in the context of
    considerable uncertainty about the outcome of those actions. Where
    costs for wrong decision are high, and uncertainty about outcome is
    great, active adaptive management should be adopted. Implementation
    of adaptive management approaches will speed up the process of
    learning how ecological systems function, and decrease the
    likelihood of large scale management errors.

    Fifth, perhaps the single best metric of sustainable use of land is
    the persistence of species over time. The public needs to understand
    that a sustainable allocation of ecosystem productivity for
    utilization over the long-term can only occur if species persist.
    Thus, outputs of commodity and non-commodity resources become a
    common measure of ecosystem integrity.

    Finally, the Forest Service must recognize the need to regain the
    trust of the American public, and to reestablish its credibility as
    a competent steward of the nation's natural resources. To regain
    this position of leadership will require extensive public input to
    the planning process, and an independent review of Forest Service
    decisions by outside reviewers. Therefore, we recommend that the
    Forest Service establish a standing advisory board to insure that it
    is making use of the best available technology and scientific
    knowledge.

    \(2\) Factors to Consider in Implementing Sustainability

    Implementation of national forest plans is not a precise process,
    and there are many unknowns and potential pitfalls that are not
    under the control of resource managers. Therefore, planning must
    acknowledge scientific and social uncertainties, be cognizant of the
    inherent variability of natural processes, acknowledge adverse
    cumulative effects of multiple management actions, and preserve
    options for future stewardship actions. This is the daunting, but
    essential, responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the Forest
    Service.

-   Acknowledge The Non-Equilibrium Nature of Ecosystems

    The classical paradigm of ecology has been the stable state
    ecosystem, sometimes referred to as the "balance of nature" or
    nature at equilibrium. As our understanding of ecological systems
    has evolved, this view has been replaced by a non-equilibrium
    paradigm that recognizes the inherent dynamical nature of ecological
    systems. Ecological systems are regularly subject to episodic,
    natural disturbance events that change their states. Contemporary
    with this paradigm shift in ecological thinking was the recognition
    that ecological systems are hierarchial structures best evaluated at
    a variety of spatial scales. The traditional ecological hierarchy
    includes genes, populations, species, communities, ecosystems, and
    biomes. The combination of these two understandings has lead to a
    view of ecological systems from both local and landscape
    perspectives. For example, a large landscape may be in compositional
    equilibrium even though individual patches in the landscape are in a
    variety of states, and these states may change through time.

    Significantly, the non-equilibrium paradigm emphasizes the
    importance of sustaining ecological processes more than specific
    ecological system states. That is, sustaining process at a landscape
    scale takes precedence over maintaining specific structural and
    compositional elements at a given location in a landscape. This has
    practical implications for the management of forests and grasslands
    -- for example, one does not manage primarily for vegetation, but
    rather manages the process of vegetation change or succession. If
    process is sustain at the landscape scale then the expectation is a
    mosaic of successional stages in some dynamic equilibrium. In
    addition, sustaining process allows ecosystems to accommodate most
    disturbance events, providing the capability of returning to
    pre-disturbance conditions.

    The new paradigm in ecology has the potential to be misused. If
    nature is often in a state of flux, then some people may wrongly
    conclude that whatever changes occur to ecological systems are
    acceptable. However, ecological systems are not infinitely
    resilient, and rates of change are bounded. Human impacts must be
    constrained because ecological systems have adaptational limits
    that, if surpassed, will lead to undesirable system states. Such
    degraded ecological systems will be severely limited in their
    ability to provide those critical goods and services required by
    current and future human generations. Sustaining ecological
    processes so that they operate within their expected bounds of
    variation is the only way to sustain species diversity for future
    generations. Even though we now recognize the non-equilibrium nature
    of ecological systems, from a human perspective the concept of
    stability of large-scale landscapes is well-founded. Ecological
    systems have historically changed so slowly that there was apparent
    continuity in landscape processes across human generations.

-   Acknowledge the Significance of Natural Processes

    National Forests and National Grasslands contain a variety of
    natural resources that change over time and space. Over long time
    horizons, natural catastrophic events are a certain and importance
    impact in most systems (e.g., widespread fire, landslides, floods,
    droughts, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions). In other instances,
    chronic but important changes may be underway that alter the
    character of the vegetation and associated resources. These changes
    include succession, long-term periods of variable precipitation,
    loss of site productivity via compaction or erosion, outbreaks of
    insects or disease, establishment and spread of non-native species,
    and loss of native species diversity. Although there is a dynamic
    and often unpredictable aspect to many natural processes, an
    appreciation of the expected disturbance intensity, frequency, and
    duration over the planning horizon needs to be factored into
    planning efforts.

    In the past, the Forest Service failed to adequately acknowledge the
    dynamic nature of natural resources. For example, concepts and
    terminology in widespread use over a period of many decades often
    include the regulated forest, maximum sustained yield, maximum
    carrying capacity, sacrifice areas, and maximum allowable harvest.
    Many of these terms are based on the flawed premise that commodity
    resource production can occur at relatively high levels, that such
    production is sustainable, and the collateral impacts to other
    resources are either not significant or are not measurable.
    Collectively, these assumptions are seldom valid.

    Previous management practices have changed the structure and
    composition of forest and grassland such that a simple return to
    more natural conditions is difficult or impossible in the near-term.
    For example, widespread harvesting of large diameter trees in many
    ponderosa pine forests, coupled with long-term fire suppression
    activities, has resulted in relatively dense stands of regenerating
    trees. These stands are more prone to catastrophic wildfire. How
    they should be managed is an ongoing debate. Similarly, for
    unconstrained valley systems throughout much of the American west,
    historical grazing and other practices have affected watershed
    conditions and riparian plant communities through widespread stream
    widening and incision. Even under the most enlightened future
    stewardship direction, recovery of many streams and floodplain
    functions is not possible in the near future. In other instances,
    the direct effects of increasing human populations near and within
    protection boundaries (checkerboard ownerships) of national forests
    and grasslands may limit future stewardship options.

    Attempts to \"acknowledge natural processes\" is a desirable
    attribute of the planing process and its implementation. An example
    of such an inclusion is represented by current efforts at trying to
    identify \"historical ranges of natural variability\". Such
    knowledge provides an important context for FS personnel within
    which to utilize their professional skills in conjunction with an
    understanding of site characteristics, processes, and stewardship
    options for developing practices that would be most appropriate to
    the goal of ecological sustainability. However, the scientific
    knowledge base is often limited with regard to specific ecosystem
    processes and their interactions. Much previous research has focused
    on deterministic processes and/or cause-and-effect at specific
    sites, thus our ability to generalize and extrapolate the results of
    individual studies to a wide range of ecosystem conditions remains
    limited.

-   Acknowledge Uncertainty

    Uncertainty arises from numerous sources and occurs during many
    stages of the planning process. Most important to our discussion
    here is scientific uncertainty that arises from incomplete
    understanding of how ecological systems work or insufficient
    information to determine the relations between processes. Often
    there is incomplete information of the relevant ecological
    processes, the connections among ecosystem components, and
    incomplete knowledge of the impacts of management. Furthermore,
    ecological systems are often highly variable, and process may
    operate differently above and below some thresholds. Analysis of
    management alternatives must consider the lack of complete
    understanding of ecological relations, confidence limits on
    projections into the future, and the inherent variability of
    ecological systems.

    Uncertainty is one of the primary ingredients of nearly all
    stewardship decisions undertaken at the regional or forest level.
    However, previous planning efforts generally conducted deterministic
    evaluations, failing to explicitly acknowledge natural variability
    and the risks associated with decisions made under uncertainty.

    For example, estimates of future annual timber harvest associated
    with a particular option in a forest plan are usually presented as a
    specific value. If nothing unanticipated happens over the
    implementation period, such a number may represent the most probable
    outcome of a specific plan. However, without some measure of
    uncertainty and variability these numbers falsely imply that the
    projected outcome has a high degree of certainty. To acknowledge the
    probabilistic nature of ecological processes will require explicit
    incorporation of risk assessment into the planning process. Given
    the inescapable variability of ecological processes, planners have
    the responsibility to explicit incorporate uncertainty into their
    analyses. It is critical that the Forest Service learn to make
    decisions and manage in a highly variable and uncertain environment,
    and to fully inform the public of the risks associated with its
    decisions.

-   Acknowledge Cumulative Effects

To aid implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 1978
defined cumulative effects as:

\"\...the impact on the environment resulting from the incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such
actions.\"

Implicit in this definition is the concept that a specific
cause-and-effect response to a management action can be identified. In
addition, simple additivity of effects seldom occurs, as implied in the
CEQ definition, because multiple and non-linear environmental responses
to any change in the ecological system can occur.

Even less clear with regard to the CEQ definition of cumulative effects
is how to incorporate the role of future natural disturbance events. For
managed and undisturbed areas within a national forest or grassland,
natural disturbances are a fundamental feature of these systems. And,
for many types of potential cumulative effects the occurrence of a
disturbance event may be necessary before a cumulative effect become
apparent. For example, a decision not to thin a dry-site forest with
significant amounts fuel loading may result in catastrophic watershed
conditions if a natural wildfire occurs; a poorly designed road may not
be problem until a large storm occurs and numerous road-related
landslides occur; overgrazing in riparian areas may not manifest itself
into a loss of woody species until the occurrence of a extended period
of below average annual precipitation occurs.

The wide variation in site-specific practices and local environmental
conditions (e.g., vegetation type, topograpy, geology and soils) that
occur across a given national forest or grassland indicate that the
direct and indirect effects of management practices may not always be
well-understood, nor will they be easy to accurately predict. Even when
general patterns of cumulative effects become evident at watershed and
bioregional scales (e.g., basin-wide and regional patterns of channel
incision, reduced abundance or extent of specific plant or animal
species, altered water quality), estimates of site-specific
contributions may be difficult to achieve.

There are few standard analytical methods available to incorporate
cumulative effects. The field of integrated assessment is still
developing and is generally broader scale than a national forest. Early
cumulative effects assessments on the national forests often focused on
water resources and fisheries issues. While watershed analyses
procedures have been developed over the last decade to better understand
the spatial distribution and temporal occurrence of watershed effects,
the diversity of watershed conditions and management activities
occurring in a given area may preclude standard analytical
methodologies.

Neither the NMFA (1976), or its subsequent regulations, makes direct
mention of cumulative effects or cumulative effects analysis. However,
the regulations recognized the need to coordinate planning with local,
state, and other federal agencies, as well as, with private landowners
that are intermingled with National Forest System Lands. The regulations
also required monitoring and evaluation of management effects on
national forest lands that may be affected by planning decisions,
including the effects of activities occurring on nearby lands. New NFMA
regulations are needed with specific language indicating that cumulative
effects analyses are to be incorporated into planning efforts. These
analyses should focus on relevant issues at both ecoregional and
watershed scales.

E. Preserve Options

Preservation of future stewardship options is rarely possible when
current rates of resource exploitation are high. Preserving options
assumes an acceptable \"decision space\" will be available to address
the environmental problems confronting future human generations.
However, many forest and range ecosystems have experienced intensive
resource management and utilization by Euro-Americans with adverse
effects on their productive potential. The most significant changes in
these systems have occurred over the last 200 years. For example, in
forested systems most of the old-growth has been converted to younger
stands; extensive road systems have been built with outdated
technologies based on unsustainable levels of resource use. In rangeland
areas, alterations to riparian systems and stream channels has been
extensive, a consequence of historical watershed and riparian management
practices. In either of these situations, future stewardship options
have been reduced or, in some cases, essentially eliminated. While
current stewardship activities can potentially reduce (sometimes
increase) future options, if these practices significantly and adversely
affect other resources or values, then they are also likely to
significantly limit future options. If current practices result in
species becoming threatened or endangered, water quality standards being
exceeded, or public values and trust violated, then dramatic
readjustments to current stewardship activities are clearly needed.

Preserving options is also a way of explicitly acknowledging our
incomplete knowledge of complex ecosystems -- that is, our ignorance of
how they function and their interactions with natural and human
influenced disturbance regimes -- and our responsibilities to future
human generations. This philosophy is perhaps best encapsulated by
focusing more on what we leave behind in exploited ecosystems than on
what is taken from them.

D. How Ecological Concepts Affect Planning

\(1\) Assessing and Monitoring Sustainability

Assessment and monitoring to characterize sustainability is an
indispensable part of land and resource stewardship. To date, they have
not been integrated into the planning and implementation process. Yet
including assessment and monitoring within the process is the single
most important shift in forest stewardship that can happen. Assessment
needs to inform decisions regarding the current status of land and
resource stewardship. The assessment and monitoring processes create the
information necessary for future decisions, can save costs of future
inventory analysis, and reduce the likelihood of management mistakes.
Monitoring is the means to continue to update the baseline information,
and to determine the degree of compliance to the retention of ecological
sustainability.

Assessment and monitoring is meant to be an evolving process. The focus
may change over time or space as concerns change. Whether the current
emphasis is on composition, process, structure, or some combination of
these features depends on pending decisions, characteristics of the
system, and features most at risk. Furthermore, ongoing technological
developments and advances in the scientific understanding of
sustainability will lead to additions and refinements in the ways that
sustainability can be measured. For example, concurrent developments in
geographic information systems and the field of landscape ecology have
allowed a broad scale perspective of land stewardship to be implemented.
Thus, management should be viewed as a learning process that contributes
to our current knowledge and affects the way sustainability is measured
and provided for by future management practices.

Assessments need to recognize the hierarchial organization of ecological
systems. A hierarchial approach to the assessment of ecological systems
recognizes that smaller subsystems change more rapidly than do the
larger systems to which they belong. At a landscape scale processes
operate so as to constraint faster and more local processes, including
structure and composition, at smaller spatial scales. Given this
perspective, current scientific understandings suggest that sustaining
biological diversity over multiple human generations requires that
stewardship policies be set initially at a landscape scale. Therefore,
the initial goal of a sustainability policy should be the retention of
those ecological processes that support and retain biological diversity
at a landscape scale.

Given the lack of well-established theories that specify which level of
the complex hierarchy of ecosystems is most appropriate, the guidance to
assess at a landscape scale is imprecise. For the foreseeable future,
managers will have considerable latitude in choosing the boundaries, and
thus scale, of the systems they manage. This indeterminacy is not
necessarily bad as long as it is realized that the ultimate goal of
management and stewardship is to retain those dynamical processes that
provide for biological diversity at the landscape scale.

Despite the apparent primacy of assessment at a large landscape scale
(as discussed in a later section), this scale may provide insufficient
resolution for some management problems. Therefore, choice of boundaries
and spatial scale will remain an essential part of assessing a system
and proposing solutions to specific problems. These small landscape
assessments, however, must be able to be aggregated upward and be
consistent with large landscape analyses.

For pragmatic reasons, only a limited number of measures can be used to
infer the sustainability of complex ecosystems. Therefore, it is useful
to apply a hierarchical assessment to identify the most relevant scale
for a particular management problem. A hierarchical approach to
assessment allows for planning to simultaneously consider sustainability
needs at various spatial scales. This approach acknowledges that some
characteristics of sustainability are best viewed from a regional
perspective, while others are more appropriately considered at more
local scales.

The planning process needs to identify those issues that are relevant at
the broad regional, watershed, and site specific scales (Table 1).
Assessment information must be relevant to all these concerns. It is
useful to establish terminology for discussing the hierarchies involved
in an assessment process (Table 1). The national level is the broadest
level of assessments for the Forest Service. Regional assessments may be
based on bioregional characteristics or planning regions. At the
mid-level of this scale are regions such as watersheds that follow
hydrologic boundaries, or conservation areas that focus on habitats that
cut across hydrological boundaries. Because watersheds can range from
sub-basins to smaller scales, watersheds are also represented at the
fine-scale with the project level of management being at the finest
scale of resolution.

On the National Forests today, a blend of coarse and fine filters are
used to monitor for sustainability. Coarse filter stewardship strategies
are based primarily on distributions of habitats (numbers of types,
their ranges of size, and their interspersion), and other
large-landscape elements. Fine-filter, species-specific approaches,
however, are required to ensure maintenance of species viability and
genetic diversity. \<\<Sidebar B\>\>

\(2\) Broad regional issues

By initially addressing the assessment and monitoring to the landscape
scale, the value of the regional information for finer scale analysis
can be considered (Table 2). Regional-scale information typically is
derived from a combination of remotely sensed and ground-based data.
Both satellite imagery and aerial photographs can provide complete
spatial coverage of an area. The availability of this information should
be fully exploited for landscape-scale analyses. The ecological value of
this information, if carefully interpreted, arises from the information
it provides on vegetation composition, pattern, and context at the large
landscape scale.

Processes particularly important at a regional scale include
fragmentation and connectivity. Fragmentation refers to the alteration
of previously continuous habitat into spatially separated and smaller
patches. Habitat fragmentation can and often does result from human
land-use dynamics, including forestry, agriculture, and settlement, but
also can be caused by wildfire, wind, flooding, outbreaks of herbivores
or pathogens, and other disturbances. Land management decisions can
alter habitat fragmentation patterns of natural forests and grasslands
as a result of adding fences, roads, or via land cover changes.

The pattern of habitat fragmentation and connectivity can constrain the
spatial distribution of species by making some areas accessible and
others inaccessible. Connectivity is a threshold dynamic, meaning that
incremental reduction of habitat may have only gradual effects on the
presence or abundance of a species until the threshold region is
encountered. After this point, the adverse effects on species viability
tend to be dramatic. Changes in the abundance and distribution of
land-cover are more likely to have substantial effects when habitat for
a given species is near its threshold abundance. The threshold of
connectivity varies among species and depends on the abundance and
spatial arrangement of the habitat and the movement or dispersal
capabilities of the organism.

\(3\) Sub-regions: Watersheds of Conservation Areas

Sub-regions provide a middle scale (between regions and sites) for
assessment and monitoring. Often information relevant to a specific
management issue is best represented at the sub-region scale. Example
sub-regions are conservation areas (\<\< see sidebar\>\>) and
watersheds.

In simplest terms, a watershed comprises a land area that drains to a
common point. The use of watersheds as the planning unit focuses
assessment on a physically connected portion of the landscape,
unambiguously delineated by topographic features at the margins (i.e.,
ridges and watershed divides). Implicit in a watershed perspective is
the crucial role of gravity in the general movement of water, nutrients,
sediment, organic matter, and other resources in a down‑slope direction.
The movement of various ecosystem outputs and products to lower
elevations provides for process \"connectivity\" within the watershed
whereby downslope areas are \"connected\" or influenced by activities
and processes occurring on upslope areas. For example, altered water
quality in a headwater stream may contribute to downstream changes in
water quality or aquatic habitats. In similar fashion, a landslide
initiating along a ridge may carry far enough downslope such that it
significantly changes the character of a stream reach. It is this
\"connectivity\" of various products and processes within watersheds
that can provide an important ecological basis for undertaking
watershed‑based planning efforts.

There are clear advantages to using subregions such as watersheds to
address several types of ecological and regulatory concerns (e.g.,
fisheries, riparian management, and water quality) on national forests
and grasslands. However, there are also situations where a differing
landscape perspective of ecosystem boundaries and issues may be more
useful and more appropriate. For example, watersheds with gentle
topographic relief may not have well delineated watershed divides. Where
watersheds have significant relief, the distribution of specific forest
types and plant communities are typically arrayed along discrete
elevational gradients, connecting with those of adjacent watersheds.
Because many animal species frequently range across watershed divides,
ecological assessments addressing wildlife and other issues (e.g.,
recreation use) may best be addressed using planning areas that involve
multiple watersheds (e.g., ecoregions, physiographic regions). For a
wide-ranging species, the connectivity of habitat across the landscape
may be a prime determinant of its viability. The important point with
regard to the selection of planning areas is to choose boundaries that
circumscribe the issues to be addressed.

\(4\) Site Specific Information

The requisite information on structure, composition, and process needed
at finer spatial scales largely depends on the specifics of the
management issue. Compositional information typically focuses on the
status of species, plant, animal, or fungus that are rare, endangered,
or used for economic or recreation purposes (e.g., timber or game
species). Process information at the fine scale usually relates to the
contribution these species provide to critical ecosystem functions.
Examples include pollination, soil processes, nutrient cycling, and
energy flow across trophic levels. Process also focuses on the
expression of disturbance events (e.g., fire, windthrow, flooding) on
the structure and composition of biogenic and geologic elements at a
local scale. Structural features include topography and land form, but
most often relate to the age and seral stage of the vegetation.

\(5\) A Cross Scale Issue: Species Viability

The emphasis on sustainability and ecological process initially focuses
on the broad spatial scales and large landscapes. Given this systems
approach, equal emphasis is put on the components of the system \-- that
is, the individual species. The mandate to ensure species viability and
maintain biological diversity is an expression of both the intrinsic and
instrumental value of biological diversity. It is important to note that
diversity is sustained only when individual species persist -- the goals
of species viability and sustaining biological diversity are
inseparable. \<\<sidebar C\>\>

A viable species is defined as consisting of self-sustaining populations
that are well-distributed throughout the species' range. Self-sustaining
populations are those that are sufficiently abundant, and have
sufficient genetic 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.

Because of the inescapable uncertainty of environmental events, the
likelihood of a species persisting indefinitely across time is
uncertain. Because it is impossible to ensure the viability of a given
species, it is necessary to be very clear about the goals of the
viability requirement, and the process of viability analysis. Some of
the important principles relative to viability and its analysis include:

a\) The short-term viability of a species is influenced by many factors,
including its size, sex ratio, age structure, reproductive and survival
rates, and geographic distribution. In addition to total population
size, the spatial distribution of local populations, and of individuals
within populations, can have profound effects on the likelihood of
persistence.

b\) Any statement about the likelihood that a species will be viable
under a specific management strategy must explicitly incorporate
probability and time \-- that is, the likelihood that a species will be
viable is measured along a continuum in terms of some projected
likelihood of persistence over a specified time period.

c\) The purpose of a viability assessment is to gain insights into how
resource management can change those parameters under Forest Service
control (e.g., habitat quality and distribution) influencing the
probability of persistence.

d\) A first step in complying to the viability mandate is to assess the
likelihood of species persistence over specified time intervals, based
on our current understanding of how populations change in space and time
as a consequence of internal and external factors. Since viability can
never be ensured with 100% certainty, whether or not, a population is
deemed viable is a decision on an acceptable risk of extinction. This is
a valued-based, not a science-based, decision.

e)  Given that habitat loss and fragmentation are the major factors
    putting species at risk, the Forest Service planning process should
    emphasize, but not be restricted to, the quantity, quality, and
    distribution of habitat necessary for viability of all species. This
    charge will also require consideration of natural disturbance
    regimes and how they affect habitat area and distribution.

-   Focal Species

Because of the impossibility of monitoring the status and assessing the
viability of all species, it is necessary to focus on a smaller subset
of species. We propose the generic term 'focal species' to allow a
diversity of approaches to selecting those species to monitor and assess
for viability. The key characteristic of a focal species is that its
status and time trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger
ecosystem to which it belongs. The term 'focal' is inclusive of several
existing categories of species used to assess ecosystem integrity
including:

a\. Indicator species -- species selected because their status is
believed to (i) be indicative of the status of a larger functional group
of species; or (ii) be reflective of the status of a key habitat type;
or (iii) act as an early warning to the action of an anticipated
stressor to ecosystem integrity.

b\. Keystone species -- species whose effects on one or more critical
ecological processes, or biological diversity, are much greater than
would be predicted from their abundance or biomass.

c\. Ecological engineers -- species who, by altering the habitat to
their own needs, modify the availability of energy (food, water, or
sunlight), and affect the fates and opportunities of other species.

d\. Umbrella species -- species who, because of their large area
requirements or use of multiple habitats, encompass the habitat
requirements of many other species.

e\. 'Link' species -- species that play critical roles in the transfer
of matter and energy across trophic levels or provide a critical link
for energy transfer in complex food webs.

Some species of concern may not satisfy the requirement of providing
information to the larger ecosystem, but because of public interest,
will also be monitored and assessed for viability. Such species include
some threatened and endangered species, game species, sensitive species,
and those that are vulnerable due to their rarity.

Available knowledge of species ecologies and their functional roles in
ecosystems is so limited that it is impossible, *a priori*, to
unambiguously identify focal species. Therefore, the selection of focal
species, based on existing information and the criteria for inclusion,
should be treated as a hypothesis rather than a fact. Given this
uncertainty, the assumption that a specific species serves a focal role
must be validated by monitoring and research.

An emphasis on focal species, including their functional importance or
their role in the conservation of other species, nicely combines aspects
of single-species and ecosystem management. It also leads us to consider
species directly, rather than limiting our focus to ecological processes
that may not sustain some components of biological diversity.

E. Spanning Ownership Boundaries in Assessments

(1) Relationship of Assessment on National Forests to Assessment Efforts
    of Other Agencies.

Monitoring on national forests needs to relate closely to assessment
efforts of other agencies. At broad scales land is composed of multiple
agency ownership, and even within some forests, private ownership is
mixed in with the federal lands. Therefore, it is imperative that
assessment opportunities be coordinated with private, state, and other
federal land holders. Examples of these issues are the management of
wide ranging species such as grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem or the red cockaded woodpecker in the southeastern states.
Where issues cross ownership boundaries there is a clear need for common
assessment information at the regional and subregional scales. Uniform
data collection and documentation standards are necessary for the
agencies to collect, map and share data across the boundaries.

A good example of such cooperation was accomplished by the Southern
Appalachian Assessment which involved both federal and state natural
resource agency specialists in order to describe the ecological, social,
and economic characteristics of the multi-state region. In this case, an
interagency cooperative was formed that directed the scope and depth of
analysis. By avoiding duplicating work that might have been necessary if
each agency had acted independently, the scope and depth of analysis
were significantly broadened. The breadth of the Southern Appalachian
Assessment allows for opportunities to further expand the analysis based
upon the general availability of the data.

\(2\) The role of Advisory Boards in Assessment

\"Advisory/review\" boards can serve an important role in assessing
ecological sustainability at a landscape scale. Their charge would be to
initially consider management issues independent of land ownership
patterns. By providing oversight, such boards can allow for the
flexibility necessary to design and implement a useful assessment
program that includes all stakeholders. In addition, the boards can also
ensure that a high level of credibility is maintained. Later sections of
this report recommend the establishment of a national and regional
\"advisory/review\" boards.

With regard to assessment, these boards could deal with future questions
pertaining to how to assess sustainability across multiple ownerships
with contrasting land use priorities. At a national level, the concepts
of sustainability are still evolving, and a scientific panel can
evaluate the most useful way for new scientific developments to be
incorporated into stewardship of forest and grazing lands. Questions at
a regional level relate to how the assessment plans depend on questions
that are location specific.

Table 1. Example of hierarchical assessment

+----------------+----------+-----------------------------------------+
| Geographic     | Scale    | Aquatic Example of Assessment           |
| Extent         |          |                                         |
+----------------+----------+-----------------------------------------+
| 1,000,000 to   | Region:  | Land cover patterns                     |
| 10,000,000 ha  |          |                                         |
|                | B        |                                         |
| (Broad)        | asinwide |                                         |
+----------------+----------+-----------------------------------------+
| 200,000 to     | S        | Status/trends of population in          |
| 1,000,000 ha   | ub-basin | sub-basin                               |
|                |          |                                         |
| (Mid)          |          | Current and potential critical habitats |
|                |          |                                         |
|                |          | Existing linkage between subpopulations |
|                |          |                                         |
|                |          | Relationship between national and human |
|                |          | distribution                            |
+----------------+----------+-----------------------------------------+
| 50,000 to      | Wa       | Current and potential population        |
| 200,000 ha     | tershed, | distribution                            |
|                |          |                                         |
| (Fine)         | Sub-W    | Current and potential critical habitat  |
|                | atershed |                                         |
|                |          | Linkage between critical stream reaches |
+----------------+----------+-----------------------------------------+
| Less than      | Stream   | Current and potential distribution by   |
| 50,000 ha      | reach    | stream reach                            |
|                |          |                                         |
| (X-Fine)       |          | Critical habitat distribution/size by   |
|                |          | reach                                   |
|                |          |                                         |
|                |          | Linkage/isolation of critical habitat   |
|                |          | by reach                                |
|                |          |                                         |
|                |          | Relation between national and human     |
|                |          | disturbance                             |
+----------------+----------+-----------------------------------------+

Table 2. Sustainability attributes by scale.

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Scale           | Composition     | Process         | Structure       |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Region          | Metapopulations | Fragmentation   | Land cover      |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | Migrants        | Connectivity    |                 |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | Ubiquitous      |                 |                 |
|                 | species         |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Watershed       | Rare habitats   | Energy flow     | Habitat         |
|                 |                 |                 | distribution    |
|                 | Streamsides     | Nutrient        |                 |
|                 |                 | cycling         | Vegetation      |
|                 |                 |                 | distribution    |
|                 |                 | Soil processes  |                 |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 | Disturbances    |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Site            | T&E species     | Pollination     | Standing dead   |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | Game species    | Reproduction    | Woody debris    |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
|                 | Economic        | Mortality       |                 |
|                 | species         |                 |                 |
|                 |                 | Disturbances    |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

Table 3. Relationship between the criteria from the Santiago agreement
and the three elements of sustainability: composition, function and
structure

  -------------------------------------- ------------- ---------- -----------
  Criteria from Santiago Agreement       Composition   Function   Structure

  1\. Conservation of biological         X                        
  diversity                                                       

  2\. Maintenance of productive capacity               X          
  of ecosystems                                                   

  3\. Maintenance of ecosystem health                  X          X
  and vitality                                                    

  4\. Conservation and maintenance of                  X          X
  soil and water resources                                        

  5\. Maintenance of forest contribution               X          X
  to global carbon cycles                                         
  -------------------------------------- ------------- ---------- -----------

![](media/image1.emf){width="5.208333333333333in"
height="8.070833333333333in"}

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*SIDEBAR IN SUSTAINABILITY
SECTION\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

Sidebar A: STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

All ecosystems have elements of composition and structure arising
through diverse ecological processes. Achieving a desired future
landscape condition depends on sustaining key ecological processes,
whose functions then produce valuable structural and compositional
elements. If the linkage between underlying processes and explicit
structural and compositional elements has been broken in some ecological
systems, restoration maybe difficult and complex. One example is the
introduction of large woody debris into forest streams to improve
aquatic habitat where current in-stream levels of wood are well below
historical norms. While such structure is often an essential component
for the functioning of many streams, the site‑specific addition of large
woody debris for structure without recognition of riparian processes can
ultimately result in a failed restoration effort. A general focus on
structure cannot substitute for improved riparian management practices
(e.g., forest harvesting, grazing, mining) that will allow future
natural inputs of coarse woody debris, seasonal inputs of particulate
organic matter, amelioration of stream temperatures, stabilize banks,
and ultimately the restoration of key riparian processes. Thus, both
structure and process must be addressed in such restoration projects.

Another example is the restoration of natural processes without
sufficient attention to structure. In dry‑forest types of the western
United States, fire exclusion or suppression has historically occurred
over large areas. To meet restoration goals, fire has been proposed for
reintroduction into these forests where it historically provided
important ecosystem functions. However, the altered structure and
composition of current forest conditions makes restoration of fire, and
its expected outcomes, difficult to accomplish. In the current
situation, fire occurrence in the normal season may be too intense, and
while out‑of‑season burning may occur at an inappropriate intensity
range or may occur at a high duration due to accumulated forest‑floor
fuels. Even large trees may be unintentionally killed in some of these
situations. Thus, fire reintroduction without some prior forest
treatment (e.g., thinning, understory removal) may have significant
unintended effects on ecosystem composition unless structure and process
interactions are addressed.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Sidebar B: Coarse and fine filter approaches to relate to discussion of
hierarchical approaches to assessment:

The notion of coarse and fine filters is being employed by the National
Forests to address biological diversity and species viability issues. As
an example, the Southern Region defined their \"coarse filter\" by
elements that characterize the structure and composition of the
landscape, with no specific reference to species requirements or habitat
associations. The status and trends of the terrestrial coarse filter
elements were assessed for the total Southern Appalachian Assessment
area, by ecological section, by ownership, and by states. These elements
will be used to develop an initial forest plan direction related to
desired future conditions. Some of the elements used to characterize
future conditions include broad forest and non-forest land cover types,
forest successional classes, and rare native plant communities.

A fine filter approach will also be employed to identify individual
species for emphasis in the Southern Appalachian forest plans. Candidate
species include federally listed threatened and endangered species,
range-wide viability concern species, and sensitive species. Habitat
relationships will be developed for these species-habitat relations
database followed by an external scientific review. Based on the habitat
relationships, the list of species is organized/grouped into functional
groups according to habitat associations. These habitat associations,
along with individual species, will be the focus in assessing the
adequacy of forest plan direction to meet species viability
requirements.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Sidebar C: Cross scale issue: population viability analysis in the
Northwest Forest Plan.

The authors of the viability assessment in FEMAT set up expert panels to
assess the likelihood of four possible outcomes for habitat conditions
on federal lands. The panel process was designed to elicit expert
opinion and professional judgment relative to these four possible
outcomes.

Outcome A\--Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and
abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed
across federal lands.

Outcome B\--Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and
abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, but with
sufficient gaps in the historic species distribution on federal land.
These gaps cause some limitations in interactions among local
populations.

Outcome C\-- Habitat only allows continued species existence in refugia,
with strong limitations on interactions among local populations.

Outcome D\--Habitat conditions result in species extirpation from
federal land.

Options were compared by assessing whether a species (or group) attained
an 80 percent or greater likelihood of achieving outcome A. This
likelihood and outcome combination were selected, based on the judgement
of the scientists involved, to represent a relatively secure level of
habitat and an appropriate criterion for comparison of options. The
charge to FEMAT (from the Forest Conference Executive Committee which
was composed of the relevant cabinet offices) was to present
alternatives that provided a medium to very high probability of ensuring
species viability.

The authors pointed out that options other than attaining an 80 percent
likelihood of Outcome A to achieve viability may be acceptable for some
species. For other species, irreversible gaps in their historical
distributions may have already occurred, and Outcome B may be their most
likely future under even the most protective options. If a species is
already restricted to refugia by its own natural history or past
management actions, some combination of outcomes A, B and C may result.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY**

# 

# Contributions of National Forests and Grasslands to Society

The Forest Service, as trustee and steward of our great national
treasure \-- the national forests and grasslands \-- has both a legal
and, moreover, a moral obligation to preserve opportunities and choices
for future generations while providing for the economies and communities
of today. While the Forest Service cannot or should not be expected to
single-handedly sustain existing economies, cultures and communities,
the national forest system lands nonetheless contribute the many values,
services, outputs and uses that allow economies and communities to
persist, prosper and evolve according to their own wills. This charge
\-- contributing to the well-being of the communities of today and
tomorrow \-- is at the heart of the Forest Service\'s role in economic
and social sustainability.

\[alternative replacement section\] The notion of economic and social
sustainability speaks to the very capacity of a society to ensure the
long-term well-being of people and the communities they inhabit. The
lands and resources of the national forest system provide products,
uses, and services that contribute to economic and social
sustainability. However, the challenge for communities and economies is
to develop community leadership to join in public planning processes,
foster stewardship capacity to conserve the national forests, and act to
improve the general well-being of communities by energizing them to take
action.

This chapter attempts to give definition to the connections between
human communities and the lands and resources of the national forest
system. The National Forests and Grasslands were formed to provide
continuous public benefits -- water flows and watershed protection,
timber supply, and the many values of the forest itself. For communities
adjacent to the national forest system lands, these lands and resources
provide uses and values integral to the life of the community and the
nature of their economies. Communities of interest also provide the
stewardship capacity to ensure that the goals and purposes of these
lands can be carried out. This two-way relationship between society and
these lands is why sustainability is the fundamental goal of the
National Forest System.

\[The social and economic dimensions of sustainability are integral to
it, but elude easy definition because people have the capacity to modify
and change their social environment through culture and technology. The
idea that an ecosystem seeks a stable equilibrium was once a popular
idea in ecology, as in all of the scientific disciplines through most of
this century. Today, the idea of a stable universe has been replaced by
concepts of a dynamic, emergent universe. In ecology this means that
ecosystems are considered dynamic processes, characterized by a set of
conditions from which emerge characteristic states over time and in
space. Ecological sustainability, from this perspective, assures that
conditions are maintained that allow and promote these natural changes
while the overall essence of the ecosystem remains. The same is true for
human systems and social sustainability\--human systems change through
time, but sustainability is based on the capacity of human systems to
adapt and change over time. Human and ecological systems are dynamic
processss, that are highly variable, and their nature and structure
often uncertain when projected into the future.

Not surprisingly, defining sustainable social and economic conditions
creates the greatest conflicts in national forest management, because
these decisions affect peoples' lives directly, immediately and,
sometimes, dramatically. Nonetheless, social and economic sustainability
is an essential component of sustainability and must be addressed
through the Forest Service\'s land and resource management planning
process. Therefore, to ensure both ecological and social sustainability,
planning should be based on the best information and analysis available,
developed through both formal scientific research and the on-going civic
inquiry of democratic societies.\]

# National Forests: Places Where People Work, Live, Worship and Play

The long-term economic contributions of the forest reserves were
recognized from the very beginning. Irrigation districts in the West,
wanting to be assured of reliable flows for their fields, pressed
Congress for protective legislation, which was achieved in the Creative
Act of 1891. Today farmers continue to rely upon clean, reliable flows
from national forest watersheds, which comprise most of the high country
in the West and a significant proportion in the East. Commercial timber
production was recognized as the second purpose, in addition to
watershed protection, in the 1897 Organic Act. Timber harvesting
remained low until World War II, soared during the post-War boom, and
has receded since the late 1980s. Production of wood products is
unlikely return to the 1980s levels, but a steady supply of national
forest timber will continue to provide significant economic benefits.

The national forests and grasslands benefit the economy in many other
ways. Grazing of domestic livestock takes place on more than half of all
national forest system lands. Hardrock mining along with oil and gas
production are found on nearly every national forest. Recreation on the
lands and waters of the national forests and grasslands is a
multi-billion dollar industry. Indeed, most of the nation's ski areas
are located in the National Forests.

The national forest system lands provide numerous benefits and services
to adjacent towns and cities with the result that, to millions of
Americans, their connection to the forest is tangible. The watersheds
that bring green life to irrigation fields also serve the critical
function of providing drinking water to towns and cities. Grocery
stores, motels, restaurants, guides and outfitters, and other businesses
in hundreds of communities depend in whole or in part on tourism
revenues from nearby national forests and grasslands; these enterprises
help knit their community together. Indian tribes have treaty-based
hunting, fishing, and gathering rights within many national forests, and
those watersheds are essential habitat for salmon to fulfill tribal
fishing rights on rivers below the national forests. Traditional Indian
people also rely upon sacred sites within national forests and
grasslands. In the Southwest, Hispanic communities have relied for
centuries upon these lands for firewood-gathering, grazing, subsistence
hunting, and water supply for their family farms.

The national forests and grasslands give essential definition to
day-to-day life in many local communities. People hunt, fish, boat, and
hike in them. Perhaps even more fundamentally, the people's lands are
the backdrop to town\--the ridgelines that each year go from green to
white and back to green again. The forests and grasslands are places to
daydream about, to seek refuge in. A sense of place is a deep, intimate
emotion and these lands create it and sustain it through the force of
their grandeur and the comfort of their constancy.

Given their symbiotic relationship with the national forests and
grasslands, nearby communities have a special role in providing
stewardship for the national forest system lands. People who work on the
land often have a rich knowledge of it and its history; knowledge that
is accumulated through experience and passed down through generations.
This knowledge is an important contribution to understanding social and
ecological processes over time. With their direct connection and deep
knowledge, people living in communities adjacent to the national forests
and grasslands can act as stewards of these resources.

However, it is a two-way relationship in that the economies of
communities and cities adjoining national forest lands are often
materially dependent on both resources and environmental services from
these lands. For example, when siltation levels increase in streams,
fishing and coastal communities are affected by reduced fish populations
and increased harbor dredging costs. When timber harvest levels decline
in response to changes in economic organization and public policy,
small, communities with little economic diversity can experience sudden
high unemployment. Even in nearby urban areas, "high-tech" industries
dependent on clean water are immediately affected by increases in
siltation or declines in water supply. As a result, while the forests
and grasslands must serve all of the nations people, these local
communities and towns deserve particular attention when considering the
contributions of the forest to sustaining communities and economies and
the capacity for providing stewardship to the forest.

Variability and uncertainty: The realities of social sustainability in a
dynamic landscape

The land and resource planning process for the national forest system
provides an important opportunity to better understand and define the
many connections between national forest lands and their associated
economies and communities. The same diversity that characterizes an
ecosystem characterizes a human system. As described earlier, forests
contribute in numerous tangible and intangible ways to the spiritual,
cultural, social and economic well-being and identity of many
communities and individuals. The planning process must actively consider
and engage the different cultures, communities and economies that give
these contributions value. While it is not always possible to quantify
or rank diverse uses and values in order to determine such elusive
concepts as highest and best use\--just as it is impossible to identify,
count, and value all plants and animals in an ecosystem\--, it is
nonetheless essential that important uses and values be recognized,
assessed and accommodated as appropriate and possible. The process must
also consider values that have been given specific legal or historical
protections \-- such as Indian treaty rights and Hispanic land grants
\-- and ensure that these values are provided for and protected and that
other management activities do not detract from them.

As conceived in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act, within the
limits set by ecological sustainability, land and resource planning was
to seek the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of high levels or
regular periodic outputs of the various renewable resources of the
national forests. Two realities make this approach problematic. First,
the dynamics of ecosystems means that scheduling a regular, predictable
output of a single product probably will fail because productivity
varies through time. For example, experience has shown the difficulty of
achieving even flow when management focuses upon maintenance of a high
level of production of a short list of outputs (such as wood fiber and
forage). Second, an even flow can be sustained under variability, but it
often comes by over-exploiting the system\'s productivity (e.g., by
harvesting more than is produced annually) or by impairing other
ecosystem elements (e.g., grazing under conditions that cause erosion).
When managed this way, National Forests appear to promise a stability of
commodity flow that they can not deliver, and public expectations are
raised about the long-term capability of the land and likely resource
flows. At the extreme, forests managed this way become subject to
catastrophic surprises when unusual, but natural, events occur (e.g.,
greatly increased flooding and landslides during heavy rains).
Communities that grow dependent on artificially high or constant
commodity flows can eventually suffer the same catastrophic
surprises\--losing all semblance of sustainability.

Moreover, by focusing attention on a short list of commodity outputs,
many other uses and values and, furthermore, the communities dependent
upon these non-commodity contributions of the national forests, were
frequently overlooked or undervalued. Rather than focusing on sustaining
single, measurable outputs from the forest, what needs to be sustained
is the integrity of the ecological system so that the forests can
continue to contribute over the long-term to the many and diverse
values, services, outputs and uses valued by society.

Expecting an ecosystem to deliver stable and high outputs of any product
can have disastrous impacts on social sustainability. Prosperous
communities and economies can only remain healthy and vibrant if their
foundation is ecologically sustainable. The Forest Service must be
cautious to avoid making resource contributions in a manner that
establishes unrealistic expectations for economies and communities that
cannot be fulfilled over the long-term within the context of ecological
sustainability. Doing so will only lead to hardship when abrupt changes
in an economy become necessary to restore the ecological system to a
sustainable path. The ghost towns found across the country stand in mute
testament to the human consequences of rapid resource depletion. It was
to avoid these kinds of abrupt and painful losses that a policy of
protection of the forests productive capacity as measured by favorable
conditions of waterflow, prevention of soil erosion, amelioration of
climate, and preservation of wildlife, as well as steady flows of goods
and services was placed in the legal framework for the National Forests.
(See sidebar on the legal mandate.)

Assessing the contributions of national forests to communities and
economies must be a dynamic process, changing along with changing values
and knowledge. The planning process must recognize that the value of
these uses, products and services changes with time. Areas that may have
been highly valued for timber harvest or minerals extraction may assume
higher value to society as sources of clean, reliable waterflows or
recreation. Furthermore, as new knowledge becomes available, the full
worth of some contributions will be better recognized and more fully
assessed.

**Recognizing and Valuing the Contributions of the National Forests**

The land and resource planning process for the national forest system
provides an important opportunity to better understand and define the
many connections national forest lands have with the larger economy and
society within which they reside. No national forest is a closed
economy; nor is any community or town. Forests contribute in both
tangible and intangible ways to the spiritual, cultural and economic
well-being and identity of many communities and individuals in society.
The planning process must actively consider and engage the different
cultures, communities and economies that give these contributions value.
While it is not always possible to quantify or rank such divergent uses
in order to determine such elusive concepts as "highest and best use,"
it is nonetheless essential that they be recognized, assessed and
accommodated as appropriate and possible. The process must also consider
values that have been given specific legal protections \-- such as
Indian treaty rights, Hispanic land grants, and Wilderness \-- and
ensure that these values are provided for and protected and that other
management activities do not detract from them.

As conceived in the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act, within the
limits set by ecological sustainability, land and resource planning was
to seek the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of high levels or
regular periodic outputs of the various renewable resources of the
national forests. Experience with this policy has shown the difficulty
of achieving this goal when management focuses upon maintenance of a
high level of production of a short list of outputs (such as wood fiber
and forage). Not only do ecological systems become subject to
catastrophic surprises when managed with narrow goals, public
expectations are raised about the long-term capability of the land and
likely resource flows. National Forests appeared to promise a stability
of commodity flow that they could not deliver. Rather than focusing on
sustaining single, measurable outputs from the forest, what needs to be
sustained is the integrity of the ecological system so that the forests
can continue to contribute over the long-term to the values, services,
outputs and uses valued by society.

Ecological sustainability and human use are not inconsistent nor
incompatible goals. Prosperous communities and economies can only remain
healthy and vibrant if their foundation is ecologically sustainable. The
Forest Service must be cautious to avoid making resource contributions
in a manner that establishes unrealistic expectations for economies and
communities that cannot be fulfilled over the long-term within the
context of ecological sustainability. Doing so will only lead to
hardship when abrupt changes in an economy become necessary to restore
the ecological system to a sustainable path. From the perspective of
social and economic institutions and the livelihoods of people and
communities, such changes can be extremely disruptive. The ghost towns
found across the country stand in mute testament to the human
consequences of rapid resource depletion. It was to avoid these kinds of
abrupt and painful losses that a policy of protection of the forest's
productive capacity as measured by favorable conditions of waterflow,
prevention of soil erosion, amelioration of climate, and preservation of
wildlife, as well as steady flows of goods and services was placed in
the legal framework for the National Forests. (See sidebar on the legal
mandate.)

Assessing the contributions of national forests to communities and
economies must be a dynamic process. The planning process must recognize
that the value of these uses, products and services changes with time.
Areas that may have been highly valued for timber harvest or minerals
extraction may now have higher value to society as sources of clean,
reliable waterflows or recreation. Furthermore, as new knowledge becomes
available, the full worth of some contributions will be better
recognized and more fully assessed. For example, the provision of clean,
plentiful water for agricultural use in California's central valley or
for industrial use in Oregon's Willamette Valley.

SIDEBAR ON LEGAL MANDATE FOR MULTIPLE USES CONSISTENT WITH ECOLOGICAL
SUSTAINABILITY

Key phrases from the laws governing the national forests relating to the
contributions that the national forests make to the economies that
invigorate our communities and cultures:

Organic Act: The 1897 Organic Act gave three purposes for the Forest
Reserves: 1) to preserve and protect the forest within the reservation,
2) for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, 3)
to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of
the people of the United States

Sustained Yield Forest Management Act of 1944: While this act was
largely intended to provide for the creation of cooperative units of
public and private forest land, it also contains a clear statement of
the economic and social contributions of forests. " Sec. 1. In order to
promote the stability of forest industries, of employment, of
communities, and of taxable forest wealth, through continuous supplies
of timber; in order to provide for a continuous and ample supply of
forest products; and in order to secure the benefits of forests in
maintenance of water supply, regulation of stream flow, prevention of
soil erosion, amelioration of climate, and preservation of wildlife, ¼."

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act: Called for the "\...achievement and
maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level or regular periodic output of
the various renewable resources of the national forests without
impairment of the productivity of the land." Named the multiple uses as:
outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish.
Stated that: "the establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness
are consistent with the purposes and provisions of the Act." and that
"the purposes of this Act are declared to be supplemental to" the
provisions named in the Organic Act.

National Forest Management Act: "The Forest Service . . . has both a
responsibility and an opportunity to be a leader in assuring that the
Nation maintains a natural resource conservation posture that will meet
the requirements of our people in perpetuity."

END OF SIDE BAR

**The Essential Role of Stewardship in Achieving Ecological
Sustainability**

In many places, ecological sustainability depends on contributions from
communities and economies beyond the national forest's borders. The
Forest Service has always relied on individuals, organizations,
industries and communities to provide resources for society and to
protect the forests from fire, insects and disease. Today this list
includes volunteers who help address the needs of a burgeoning number of
recreational users \[see San Gorgonio Side Bar\], NGO's who have unique
knowledge and expertise about particular resources or ecological
attributes, local industries that can provide the labor and services
necessary for restoration or harvesting the commodity outputs that a
sustainably-managed forest provides to society \[see Clifton Choctaw
Side Bar\]. Today the American people are more interested than ever
before in actively participating in providing stewardship support for
the national forests and grasslands. Understanding and actively
cultivating this public commitment and capacity can significantly
improve the Forest Service's stewardship capabilities.

The capacity for protective management, for instance fuel reduction in
fire prone ecosystems, requires adequate financial resources, a skilled
workforce, and entrepreneurship. Current policy often assumes that
finances, skilled labor, and entrepreneurship are provided by normal
economic institutions. We argue here that maintenance of these economic
and social institutions is important in order to ensure ecological
sustainability in many places. For example:

> A viable timber industry will be needed for vegetation treatments to
> achieve ecological goals; otherwise the public expense of these
> treatments could be much higher.
>
> Local stewardship will often be needed for watershed restoration.
>
> Entrepreneurs must be interested in organizing resources to undertake
> needed management activities.
>
> A regular level of projects helps ensure that the needed workforce
> will be available.
>
> A strong and locally enforced legal and institutional infrastructure
> is necessary to protect ecological resources from degradation or over
> exploitation. Strong and stable communities, along with a sense of
> personal responsibility helps provide this infrastructure.

The Forest Service is inextricably tied to these economies and
communities and must find ways to nurture them so that they are there
since the National Forest relies on them in pursuing its fundamental
goal. Today the Forest Service needs to take an active role in
considering what kinds of community and business capacity are necessary
for effective stewardship and developing both the awareness of this
relationship and local entrepreneurship though the planning process.
Achieving this may mean placing individuals in positions where they are
responsible for maintaining these linkages and fulfilling these tasks.
It also means using the forest planning process to forecast future needs
and taking the steps necessary to ensure that key industries are present
and intact to meet these needs as they arise.

Clearly a broader conception of the agency's role in education is also
called for, one that encourages people to become aware of their
connection to the forest and their responsibility to assist in its
stewardship. A participatory approach in planning can create this
awareness along with the capacity to take action. Many of the forest
benefits are taken for granted in daily life, like, for example, the
waters that flow from the national forests that have a significant
economic value to large urban populations, to agriculture and to other
highly profitable industries. Many of these users are not even aware of
the watershed that supplies one of the most critical ingredients to
their economic livelihood and hence are not actively assisting the
Forest Service in ensuring that sustainable management practices are
pursued that will maintain these critical waterflows. To sustain these
environmental services, these downstream beneficiaries need to recognize
their integral connection to the national forest, have a role in the
planning process and, furthermore, may need to contribute to the cost of
management.

**Building Community Capacity and Embracing Diversity**

Traditionally, the relationship between the national forests and the
broader society was treated as a one-way street: public and private
goods flowed from federal lands to numerous beneficiaries; omniscient
public servants made choices based on their own beliefs about what was
best for society. Sustainability, however, requires that this become a
two-way relationship. And, to build this two-way relationship requires
that healthy, engaged communities be present. Community speaks to the
quality of relationships among diverse and dispersed groups of people,
not the geographic location of where they live. Forest planning can
enhance the presence and capacity of these communities, thereby
facilitating the broader effectiveness of national forest management.

National forest planning and assessment processes are critical
opportunities to build and strengthen the relationships necessary to
work toward sustainability. These processes can enrich and broaden
agency understanding of the economic, social and institutional
environment at the same time that they help build community capacity. By
engaging in meaningful public dialogue, citizens and interest groups can
learn about one another and develop a deeper appreciation of different
points of view. They can begin identifying shared issues of concern and
envisioning mutually agreed upon approaches for dealing with these
issues. They can begin reweaving the fabric of communities that have
been torn apart by years of adversarial interaction. One central
function of the planning process is to facilitate this process of
community-building by providing the opportunity and incentives for
people to come together. In so doing, it will help strengthen a
community's ability to chart and pursue a common future course, to be
vibrant and healthy and hence able to assist in the national forests'
pursuit of sustainability. Moreover, doing so will help create and
enhance the leadership, institutions and informal networks within
communities that, in turn, help the Forest Service to interact more
effectively with these communities.

Information is a key element in building an accessible planning process
and an honest relationship between the agency and communities. Open
information policies, where all the information about the resources and
management of a national forest is readily available in a range of
different locations and formats, can provide any interested individual
the ability to understand, critique and participate in planning
processes. When planning and assessment processes are viewed as joint
inquiry processes between the agency and the public, then the attitudes
of both are aimed toward mutual learning, issue identification and
problem-solving.

As the United States has come to acknowledge the growing brittleness of
its forested ecosystems, the brittleness of the institutional structures
affecting these ecosystems has also become apparent. A single watershed,
such as the Applegate area in Oregon, has a checkerboard of land
ownerships, private, state, and federal, each of which has its own
distinct objectives for land use and management. Without strong
relationships and meaningful communication and community engagement in
identifying issues and solving problems, effective forest management is
virtually impossible. Formal or informal structures will often be
required in order to provide the mechanism and incentive for such a
fragmented community to organize in order to effectively be a part of
sustainable forest management. The forest planning process is a key
avenue for doing so.

Americans are a mobile society. In the 1980s, migration patterns shifted
for the first time in 50 years as more people moved to rural areas than
to urban ones. While this trend has slowed somewhat, those counties near
or including national forest lands, especially wilderness areas,
continue to experience high rates of in-migration. The last 20 years has
seen significant changes in the demographics of the people living near
national forests. No longer are the majority of "locals" involved in
resource extraction or use economies. Now many "locals" are part-time
residents during summer or other recreational times, including hunting
and fishing seasons, or are retirees whose income is from pensions or
social security. As a result of these changes in the use of privately
held lands near the national forests, long-standing cultural diversity
near forests is being augmented with new diversity based on demographic
factors, such as age (for retirement communities), urban origin (for
"high tech" manufacturers who can import most of their physical inputs),
and wealth (summer vacation homes, lands used for investment and
speculation). Such social diversity creates special challenges for
planning and public participation.

People are diverse in their conceptions of what contributions from the
forest are of the highest value and hence what social "choices," in the
form of Forest Service stewardship decisions, should be made. They are
diverse in their cultural practices and cultural values. They are
diverse in the ways that they participate in public participation
activities (some like meetings, others like face to face discussions,
others need to be in the woods to address the issues). They are diverse
in their economic activities. Regardless, people of diverse backgrounds
often share at least one common ground: they care about and/or want to
live or visit *here*. The national forests have significant meaning to
many people in many places. The process of forming a land and resource
plan is a critical avenue for people of diverse cultures and interests
to find commonality and community in their mutual concern for their
forest, thereby building the capacity of that community to effectively
assist the agency in pursuing sustainable forest management.

**Contributions to Communities with Specific Protections under the Law**

Resource management is inherently a process of allocating scarce
resources among competing yet legitimate interests within society.
Tradeoffs get made. Because some uses have particular values to society
that may be overlooked in short-term decision-making, Congress has
bestowed specific protections in order to ensure that these values and
obligations are not forgotten or undervalued. And, it is essential that
national forest planning recognize and accommodate these protected
values and uses.

[Indian Tribal Rights]{.underline}

In the American federal system, American Indian tribes have a special
position that has evolved over two centuries of policy development. As
tribes ceded territory, they retained reservations and protected certain
activities outside of the reservations. This section summarizes the key
points that Forest Service planning needs to incorporate: treaty and
other reserved rights, the trust responsibility, the
government-to-government relationship, and other federal laws that
affect tribal rights.

*Treaty Rights.* Many American Indian tribes, especially in the Pacific
Northwest and Midwest, have rights to hunt, fish, trap, and gather on
National Forest lands. Courts have supported these rights, particularly
since the landmark decisions *U. S. v. Washington* and *U.S. v. Oregon*,
which upheld provisions in treaties that allowed access to salmon
fisheries in all usual and accustomed places. Courts support similar
language in other treaties to protect fishing, hunting, and gathering
rights on open and ceded aboriginal lands that include National Forests.
Recognition of these rights is necessary in planning processes if the
rights are to be respected and included in plans.

*Trust Responsibility.* The entire federal government, not just the
Department of the Interior, is responsible for carrying out the
government's trust responsibilities, which include recognition of
treaty-based and other legal rights of American Indians on lands outside
and inside of reservation boundaries. Current operative regulations for
carrying out the National Forest Management Planning Act do not provide
explicit recognition of treaty rights and the affirmative responsibility
of the Forest Service to protect trust resources. In addition, the
handbook, "Principal Laws Relating to Forest Service Activities" does
not inform US Forest Service officials that treaty obligations apply in
some regions. Nor are there requirements to work cooperatively with
tribes in the protection of trust and treaty resources. This must be
changed in new regulations; the Forest Service must comply with the law.

The Forest Service is obligated to recognize and to avoid adverse
effects upon tribal rights to utilize National Forest Lands. For
instance, the court in *Klamath Tribes v. United States Forest Service*
(D. Or. 1996), found that the Forest Service has a "duty to manage
habitat to support populations necessary to sustain Tribal use and
non-Indian harvest including consideration of habitat needs for any
species hunted or trapped by tribal members." In carrying out this duty,
tribal rights are to be protected "to the fullest extent possible." The
court found that these standards had not been met and issued an
injunction in favor of the tribes regarding challenged timber sales in
the Winema and Fremont National Forests in Oregon.

The Forest Service must consider the effects of its actions on rights
that may be acted upon outside of National Forest boundaries. Protection
of salmon harvest is a prime example of this principle. Tribes with
treaty and reserved rights to salmon have in some cases argued that
management of such species should be good enough to assure a
*harvestable surplus* in addition to conserving the population.
Arguments over this concept are continuing in the courts and a decision
in the Indians' favor will have impacts on forest management where
spawning grounds and habitat used by salmon before they migrate are
impacted by forest management activities.

*Sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship*. Carrying
out the fiduciary responsibilities of the trust relationship as well as
enforcing other federal laws that recognize tribal rights (to be
discussed below) require that the Forest Service and other federal
agencies work to develop cooperative relationships with tribal
governments. Executive Orders require adequate consultation. As the
Forest Service develops its ability to establish such cooperative
relationships with States\--an issue that Western Governor's called to
the Committee's attention\--it must also work to develop effective
cooperative relationships with tribal governments.

Sending a letter to the tribal council is not enough; the principle of
the government-to-government relationship requires personal contact and
establishment of ongoing cooperative relationships. In the
above-mentioned *Klamath* case, for instance, the court found the
government had a procedural duty to consult with tribes. Tribes are
particularly interested in cooperative relationships in the planning and
monitoring processes. Some issues to address are access, land exchanges,
interaction between National Forest Lands and tribal lands regarding
disease and insects, traditional knowledge, protection of sensitive
information, and adequate monitoring for protection of trust resources.

The flow of information and management policies will be two directional
in such cooperative relationships. In spite of receiving less funding
than federal agencies, many tribes have established excellent records in
uneven aged forest management, protection of all species, and in care
for water quality. As tribes obtained control of forest planning
processes on reservations, harvests typically fell as concerns for the
protection of non-timber resources in the forests were recognized. These
reductions were not as controversial within Indian communities as has
been observed in other situations; many tribes had argued with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs over high levels of cut for some years.
Interestingly, many tribes are able to handle salvage operations after
fire and windthrow without long delays. Part of the reason is some
shielding from the National Environmental Policy Act; but another major
reason is that forest planning processes within tribes, supervised by
tribal councils, lead to plans with broad tribal public support. Because
the plans protect important non-timber values, salvage operations are
not feared to be ruses for cuts that compromise those values.
Flexibility in implementation, with approval of tribal councils, is
easily attained in most cases.

*Other federal laws.* The application of the term, "trust resources,"
has been extended by laws such as the Antiquities Act, Archaeological
Resources Protection Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act (as
amended), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the National Historic
Preservation Act, and an Executive Order on Indian Sacred Sites
(#13007). The current NFMA regulations refer to the general purpose of
many of these acts, the recognition of sacred sites and sites of
archeological and historic importance. This is the only concern of the
many listed above that receives explicit attention in the regulations,
although only in the principles section. In planning and implementation,
the Forest Service must comply with these laws, and in doing so must
seek meaningful consultation with tribal governments.

Tribal treaty rights and federal laws create a stronger relationship
between tribes and national forest land than that of the general public;
rights are involved. Thus, regulations must recognize that the Forest
Service needs to forge these stronger relationships. In addition,
development of the capacities of tribal governments through the Indian
Self-Determination Act has enabled tribes to become true cooperators.
Many tribes have a strong record in sustainable forest management, and
many tribal concerns regarding the many values that forests provide
communities are the same concerns that the Forest Service is now
learning to address. The Forest Service should not be reluctant to
actively seek the cooperation of tribes in planning.

[Hispanic Communities]{.underline}

The circumstances of rural Hispanic communities in the Southwest present
another compelling example of how the Forest Service can make important
contributions to local communities. Before 1848, most of the Southwest
belonged to Spain, succeeded by Mexico. Then, in the United
States-Mexico War, the United States annexed New Mexico, Arizona,
California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. The United
States promised in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that it would
respect the land rights of Mexican citizens. The United States failed
that pledge. Through a well-documented pattern of fraud and deceit,
Hispanic landowners and communities lost millions of acres.

Today, many of those former Spanish and Mexican grant lands are within
national forests. Yet, especially in the Rio Grande watershed in
northern New Mexico and parts of southern Colorado, traditional Hispanic
communities remain tied to the land economically and emotionally. These
communities, many of them poverty-stricken, use the national forests for
many purposes critical to their land-based lifestyle, including firewood
gathering, grazing, hunting, and, in a few instances, commercial timber
harvesting. In addition, those communities can be severely disadvantaged
by land management practices within the national forests. Most notably,
acequias \-- the traditional Hispanic water distribution cooperatives
\-- suffer when the national forest watersheds fail to provide steady
flows of clean water.

Unlike Indian tribes, whose rights stemming from treaties and federal
statutes remain in force, Hispanic communities generally do not possess
explicit legal rights in the national forests, however much the Treaty
of Guadalupe Hidalgo might have intended otherwise. Nevertheless, those
communities have powerful historical and contemporary equities that
should be reflected in Forest Service policies. The first duty in the
stewardship of the national forests and grasslands must be to protect
ecological system integrity. \[Charles' original concluding sentence:
Once that is assured, however, the Forest Service should plan and manage
land-grant national forest plans to benefit local Hispanic
communities.\] \[Potential alternative concluding sentence: Once that is
assured, however, the Forest Service should plan and manage land-grant
national forest lands in a manner that acknowledges and respects the
special relationship of these lands to the Hispanic communities, a
relationship that goes back centuries. The Forest Service has a
particular obligation to recognize and accommodate the unique needs of
these communities.\]

Economic and Social Sustainability:

**When are the National Forests and Grasslands fulfilling this
responsibility?**

The notion of economic and social sustainability speaks to the very
capacity of a society to ensure the long-term well-being of people and
the communities they inhabit. The lands and resources of the national
forest system provide products, uses, and services that contribute to
economic and social sustainability. However, the challenge for
communities and economies is to develop community leadership to join in
public planning processes, foster stewardship capacity to conserve the
national forests, and act to improve the general well-being of
communities by energizing them to take action.

Measuring economic and social sustainability entails measuring whether
communities and economies can persist over time through innovation and
adaptation to new conditions. Just as a few static measures of plant or
animal abundance are not representative of the dynamic and
process-oriented components of ecological sustainability, measuring
social and economic sustainability is equally complex. Simple measures
of employment or income levels or numbers of recreation visitor days
tell us little about whether or not conditions are improving; whether or
not the contributions are sustainable; whether or not the communities
have the capacity to pursue their desired future.

Furthermore, objectively assessing community well-being is not a simple
task and is partly a discovery process undertaken by a community
reflecting upon its own history and current status. Developing a
comparative understanding of the organization and relationships of
communities and economies needs to also engage individuals with
sociological and ethnographic training. Quantifying the value over time
of wide-ranging uses, values, products and services, both tangible and
intangible, is difficult for even skilled and experienced economists.
For the Forest Service to do so in a manner that the American people
will find meaningful and acceptable will require both scientific
assessment, participatory social and economic assessments, and
independent review.

In addition to the tangible goals of economic and social sustainability,
the planning process itself can contribute to building leadership
capacity, stewardship capacity and the information and ability to
identify new resources and adapt to new opportunties. Thus, the planning
process can also be assessed in terms of its contribution to
sustainability.

Questions that could be asked of the forest planning process include:

-   Does the process fit the organization, communication, and
    decision-making

    styles that characterizes the community? Is leadership present and
    effective?

-   Does it illuminate and consider the broad range of values, uses,
    products and services of a national forest, and the communities that
    rely upon these contributions for their identity, well-being and
    livelihood?

-   Is it serving as a catalyst for diverse and dispersed communities to
    organize, reflect and constructively contribute to the planning
    process, and to the stewardship activities that are identified
    through this process?

-   Does it recognize future Forest Service needs for stewardship
    activities provided by non-agency sources and explore mechanisms for
    ensuring that these needs will be met? Are groups and individuals
    actively involved in providing stewardship services to the forest
    that are appropriate and necessary within the context of ecological
    sustainability?

-   Does it facilitate understanding and learning? Is it enhancing
    understanding about the capabilities of the national forests? Is it
    enhancing understanding of the wide-ranging values, associated with
    the contributions of the national forests and the communities who
    hold those values? Are people's concerns and interests effectively
    expressed? Is information readily accessible and in meaningful forms
    for the diverse individuals and groups who are, or might be,
    interested in it?

-   Is it open and accessible? Do people know about it? Do people feel
    welcome to actively participate in it? Are people able to
    meaningfully participate? Is it transparent, easily followed and
    understood?

-   Does it recognize and accommodate the diverse needs, knowledge, and
    capabilities of all participants?

    The essence of sustainability is adaptation and innovation in
    response to new conditions and this capacity rests on the presence
    of sufficient social capital. Today the American people are more
    interested than ever before in actively participating in planning
    for and providing stewardship of the national forests and
    grasslands. Understanding and actively cultivating this public
    commitment can significantly improve the stewardship of the federal
    lands and in turn sustain the communities and economies integral to
    these lands.

    SIDEBAR: Lessons in SUSTAINABILITY from Indian communities

    Managed Indian forests serve as models of sustainability.
    Reservations are permanent homelands where Indians live intimately
    with the environmental and economic consequences of forest
    management actions. Indians want their forests for a complex mix of
    uses\--timber harvest, livestock grazing, hunting, plant gathering,
    fire wood, fishing, scenic beauty, spiritual sanctuary\--and have a
    compelling need to balance competing interests. They have a
    well-recognized commitment to protect the resources that are both
    their heritage and legacy.

    American Indian communities provide some clear examples of different
    ways in which sustainability can occur. Cultural sustainability
    means the continuation of a way of life that connects to past ways
    of living but that is changed by interaction with the industrial
    market system and its consequences. The Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin
    is sustaining their way of life through managing their forest for
    the production of sawtimber while preserving species diversity
    within their forest. The philosophy, "don't put all your eggs in one
    basket" supports this goal; they cite the devastation of elm trees
    as evidence of the wisdom of species diversification. They have a
    tribal mill which provides employment and revenue to the tribe.
    Among the fundamental beliefs of the Menominee is that the current
    generation is borrowing from their grandchildren; hence an
    agreed-upon social goal is the maintenance of their forest and its
    productivity. Annual allowable cut is determined by observed growth
    in the previous planning period. Continued harvest of timber from
    their forest is part of their conception of the good life. Mature
    trees above the age the Menominee have selected as the rotation age
    are not present in great numbers in their forest, although the
    Menominee let their trees grow well past the rotation ages of
    industrial forestry, in order to have quality timber as well as
    quantity. In managing their forest, the Menominee use fossil-fuel
    powered equipment; they also manage a major casino and engage in
    non-forest related economic activity in order to support the
    population. As population expands, residences are not allowed in the
    forest; the Tribe purchases new land for housing.

    Another tribe, the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico, sustains its culture
    through reliance on the watershed which contains Blue Lake. The
    Taos, unlike the Menominee, do not use their forested land to
    produce sawtimber. Wildlife and clean water are much more important.
    The lake is sacred and the people keep it undeveloped. The pueblo
    itself sits on both sides of the stream where it leaves the
    watershed that is their land; people can drink directly from the
    stream. Their homes\--the traditional ones in the old Pueblo, at
    least\--are not powered by electricity; the Taos thus restrict the
    level of energy subsidy they accept from outside of their ecosystem.

    In these cases, cultural sustainability is the maintenance of a way
    of life defined by family, community, and spiritual and aesthetic
    values. Although the contents of the conceptions are different, and
    the relationship with the land is different, the examples illustrate
    the maintenance of the goodness of a way of life shared by an entire
    group. Their place is part of the definition of their identity; and
    the character of their place is in turn a result of how they care
    for that place.

    The two American Indian examples differ in the extent to which the
    land in question is connected to the surrounding landscape. The
    Menominee Reservation is a forest in a landscape of dairy farms and
    cut over forest; the Wolf River flows through the reservation. The
    Taos Pueblo's land contains most of a single watershed with
    boundaries determined by ridges. Downstream from the Pueblo, the
    non-Indian town of Taos creates important economic and social
    connections with Hispanic and Anglo communities. These communities
    are a potential source of employment. Both communities have economic
    connections to the surrounding area. With their international trade
    in wood products, the Menominee have global connections.

    END OF SIDEBAR

## CHAPT 2C {#chapt-2c .unnumbered}

##  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

## DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES FOR SUSTAINABILITY {#democratic-processes-for-sustainability .unnumbered}

The American public lands have a distinctive democratic tradition. The
1872 reservation of Yellowstone Park exemplified this new tradition when
it set the purposes of the reserve to be a "pleasuring ground for the
American people" and a place where the "processes of nature dominate."
In a nation founded on democratic principles, the people are the
sovereign. In 1891 the forest reserves were established as "protection
forests" for water flow and watershed protection purposes -- public
purposes not to be abrogated for private profit. In 1897 the expansion
of public purposes included protection of the ecological processes of
the forest itself and a continuous supply of timber for local use, not
large scale commercial profit. It is on this basis that we recognize
that these are "the people's lands."

Democratic process means taking a participatory approach in making
public policy and creating collaborative stewardship capacity to carry
out public policies. A participatory approach includes deliberation of
public purposes, participation in making public decisions, and
assessment of public performance. Collaboration is when two or more
individuals or organizations act together to carry out public purposes.
Stewardship capacity is the combination of collaborative relationships
and organizations with the formal laws, agreements, policies,
jurisdictions and land ownership duties of the broader institutional
environment.

Sustainability connects social and economic welfare with the maintenance
of long term land and resource productivity. Achieving this integration
requires democratic processes in which people participate in designing
effective strategies and collaborate in carrying them out. Thus, the
simple premise that people participate in making decisions about issues
important to them lies at the heart of sustainability. Indeed, working
toward sustainability allows this generation to act on behalf of future
generations as well.

Sustainability necessitates working across political, geographic, social
and cultural boundaries by forging new relationships with other
agencies, governments, communities and individuals. Stewardship capacity
is the sum of agreements, laws and processes of public, private and
community-based organizations to carry out actions contributing to
sustainability. Thus, collaborative stewardship of national forest
system lands engages those who have information, knowledge and expertise
to contribute to developing courses of action (i.e., other agencies,
governments, universities, tribes, NGOs, community partnerships). Those
who have sole control or authority over other lands and activities
adjacent to national forest system lands (i.e., other public and private
landowners). Those who have the skills, energy, time and resources to
carry out stewardship activities (i.e., communities, individuals,
organizations, other agencies). Those who can help monitor and assess
on-the-ground consequences of management actions in order to help better
inform future decisions (i.e., other governmental agencies, tribes,
communities, NGOs, individuals). Those who can independently validate
the credibility of stewardship decisions and the reality of achievements
(i.e., scientific experts and knowledgeable people).

[Key elements that can enhance Stewardship Capacity:]{.underline}

-   Planning processes that build the capacity of the public to engage
    in the planning process and contribute to stewardship activities. In
    other words, it requires *democratic processes*.

-   Organizations and processes that support and seek learning; a
    willingness among agency and community leaders to provide the
    flexibility and support to try new things in new ways. In other
    words, it requires *civic inquiry and* *organizational learning*.

-   Far-sighted individuals who seek partners to achieve public
    purposes, communities that organize to integrate complex public
    goals, and governments that build relationships to carry out their
    programs. In other words, it requires *collaboration*.

# Democratic processes in planning

Planning is the process where public purposes are deliberated and public
decisions made affecting the National Forests. Thus, planning processes
need to be based on a participatory approach to making and assessing
public decisions and ideally, build collaborative relationships to carry
out complex public purposes.

**Deliberation of public purposes** means bringing people together to
define issues of public concern and engage in extended public discussion
about the meaning of the issue for the conservation and management of
the national forest system lands and the implications of potential
resolutions for sustainability. Public issues vary widely in terms of
whether there is sufficient scientific and technical information
available to understand them and the implications of alternative
solutions. They also vary in terms of their contentiousness: some issues
involve multiple goals and require extended public discussion about how
the goals. Other issues are relatively simple in that they involve a
single resource use or purpose. Thus, different issues necessitate
different deliberation strategies and the planning process needs to
incorporate the flexibility to treat issues differently. The following
typology suggests strategies for deliberation under different
information and conflict conditions.

#  PURPOSES

Single use/resource Multiple use/resource

# INFORMATION

Routine Public

Sufficient Deliberation Deliberation

Information with periodic with Expert

Review Review

Tentative Expert Public and

Information/ Deliberation Expert

Gaps/research with Public Deliberation with

Needed Review Public and Scientific

Review

Ongoing deliberation builds familiarity with public issues, the
diversity of public viewpoints, and the complexity of the ecological and
social systems. When planning is not an "event" but a continuous
activity, then deliberation can build trust and legitimacy for public
action. Essential to the development and maintenance of trust is open,
external review of decisions. The above typology incorporates external
review in all forms of deliberation, with the combination of public and
expert review needed when public purposes must be negotiated in the
context of tentative information and expert judgments. But external
review needs to become a cornerstone of public deliberation in order to
build the capacity to come to public judgment about desired courses of
action.

**Coming to public judgment** is a time-consuming process when
overlapping public purposes have to be integrated within complex
strategies for land and resource conservation and management. This
process cannot be rushed, but it can be expedited by maintaining ongoing
dialogue. Ongoing processes of civic engagement create a reservoir of
public understanding that can be drawn upon when difficult issues arise
or unexpected events occur, like hurricanes, floods, and fires. In this
way, strong civic capacity can provide for efficient action by providing
the context for considering what to do in light of past decisions and
the capacity to organize to take action. This is the "payoff" for
building deliberative capacity.

Engaging the American public in deliberating the future of the National
Forest and Grasslands is more than just talking to people living near
the forests and grasslands. Pinchot set forth the principle that local
decisions should be made on local grounds at a time with local meant
"people living nearby." Today, people who live great distances from the
forests and grasslands feel strong attachment to them and want to
participate in making decisions about them. Just as transportation
systems have changed the meaning of "local" in decision-making, so have
information technologies transformed the abilities of people living far
from national forests to join in deliberating their future. New methods
of public dialogue need to be invented in order for planning to
effectively engage the American people. This is one of the key design
principles for our new planning process.

To facilitate communication and learning, all information about the
National Forest should be available on the Internet. The planning
process should include a participation strategy designed for the
Internet so that interested parties living away from the area can
participate in planning for it. Working analyses and discussion papers
should be continuously available and contributions invited. The planning
process should make every effort to invite participation from people
living too far from the area to participate in frequent meetings.

People know best how public policies will affect them. This simple
premise is fundamental to democracy and its corollary is that people
should participate in making public decisions that affect them.
Decisions about the conservation, use and management of the national
forest system affect the American public as a whole. But not everyone
everywhere is affected the same way. For some the knowledge that the
ecological processes are protected is of prime importance. For others,
the wildness of the forests distinguishes them from other lands and
needs to be protected from the encroachment of human resource demands.
For still others, the lands and resources of the national forests and
grasslands provide livelihoods ranging from mushroom and huckleberry
gathering to grazing and logging. The mandate of the national forest
system lands sets forth the principles of multiple use and
sustainability to guide the balancing of these many interests.

Thus, the planning process needs to build public decisions from the
deliberative processes. Public decisions then carry the legitimacy
formed by considered judgment about complex issues and multiple
interests. A public agency has the authority to carry out public
decisions, but it cannot make them alone.

**Assessing public performance** is more than just a cursory review of
expenditures and production of goods and services. Complex strategies
for conserving and managing the resources of the national forests and
grasslands necessitate careful, independent review by outside
scientists, interested parties and knowledgeable people. The same
careful balancing used to craft policies meeting many diverse interests
needs to inform a public review process. Expert and scientific review
alone is not sufficient to ensure public acceptability or simple common
sense.

Assessment of public performance is a public duty and needs to be an
essential part of the planning process. One aspect of this assessment is
the development of a monitoring process to measure performance against
expected outcomes. While the design of a monitoring process may be as
simple as measuring water temperature and water flow and carried out by
school children, it can also be as complex as a research experiment and
engage the research community. Without measurement and maintenance of
good records for historical comparisons, it is difficult to assess long
term performance. But measurement and monitoring processes are not
enough.

Two other qualities are essential to assess public performance: long
term perspective and memory plus the capacity to learn from mistakes and
unexpected results. Both of these qualities again necessitate engaging
the public as individuals, but more importantly as communities and
organizations.

**Civic Inquiry and Organizing to Learn through Collaboration**

**Civic inquiry is how communities learn from experience.** Taking a
long-term view is difficult for individuals but easy for communities.
Communities are built on long-term relationships, and thus naturally
maintain history in the process of maintaining their identity and
initiating newcomers. This historical sense is generally missing in the
development of resource management decisions as well as in the
assessment of their outcomes. What happened before, what followed events
of significance, what lessons can we draw? Communities maintain the
answers to these questions. Thus, the planning process needs to
effectively engage the many communities associated with the public
lands. Some communities are communities of place and they have the
special knowledge of how a place has changed over time and how events
have shaped its present condition. Other communities are communities of
interest and they have the special knowledge of how society and economy
have changed over time and redefined the nature and qualities of
resources. Some communities exist only through sharing a perspective and
common frame of reference, like scientific communities. Yet, each of
these communities also provides a different perspective on understanding
the past and current conditions of the land and resources.

**Learning is part of civic inquiry**. Communities are founded on the
capacity to learn from mistakes. An essential aspect of any community is
inquiry and testing. Learning from experience and remembering what works
and what doesn't is a part of everyday life, and is passed on through
the generations. This civic inquiry process can be a powerful resource
for keeping track of how well complex resource management strategies
work over time. Places vary enormously and so it is difficult to
generalize performance. Thus, the capacity of different kinds of
communities to observe, test, and remember the outcomes of management
actions can greatly enhance the ability to assess public performance.
Engaging these multiple communities in deliberation, public decisions
and assessment of performance is the cornerstone of effective planning.

Simple individual learning is when clear evidence of failure of one
procedure leads to the development of another to achieve the same end.
Social learning is when people join in assessing experience and develop
new goals, new relationships, and new methods. Effective resource
management needs more than just simple learning. Rather, experience and
results lead to reconsideration of goals and strategies. This kind of
learning requires people and organizations to be open to new ideas,
flexible in their approach to problems, and ready to engage in
self-reflection. Collaboration creates organizations that can engage in
social learning.

**Collaboration** is when two or more individuals or organizations act
together to carry out public purposes. The beauty of collaboration is
that it joins together individuals, programs, budgets, and authorities
across several organizations to achieve what no one of them acting alone
could accomplish. Participation is one way in which collaborative
relationships evolve, but oftentimes, far-sighted individuals within
organizations come together and collaborate in developing a public
decision and gathering the resources to implement it.

We believe that planning will be more successful if it takes a
"collaborative" approach in which people, communities, tribes,
businesses and governments are full partners in defining issues,
developing options for addressing them and garnering the resources to
act. Collaboration, quite simply, is based on the "old adage that 'two
heads are better than one' and that one by itself is simply not good
enough." Two heads can be "better" in many different ways. They bring
more issues, perspectives, and ideas to discussions. They bring more
resources, time and energy to the resolution of issues and the
implementation of plans. They foster better decisions; decisions that
are better informed, better understood, better accepted, and more apt to
be implemented.

With such a simple premise, but applied to so many varied contexts, it
is not surprising that "collaboration" is not a uniformly structured
process. Instead, collaborative processes work precisely because they
are always tailored to fit the particular situation of concern.
Consequently, there are many varied shapes, sizes, functions and
outcomes of collaborative processes that can be observed across the
landscape of resource management activity. What is important is not the
precise formula or the rigid structure, but rather that each is guided
by some fundamental principles. They strive to be inclusive, open,
representative, guided by clear expectations and objectives, flexible,
but at the same time, linked to existing law and procedures, and having
clear decision rules and authorities. They build on current scientific
understandings and knowledge and seek out relevant expertise as needed.

There is no magic to collaboration. And, there are only two key
ingredients that must be present and that *all* successful collaborative
efforts share in common. Effective collaborative efforts involve
individuals who, first, share a concern about a place, an issue or a
problem and, second, are committed to working together on its behalf.
Shared concerns and commitment are the essential ingredients. It is
worth noting that one element in many of the promising approaches that
COS heard about was that those individuals involved \-- Forest Service
and non-Forest Service alike \-- viewed what they were doing to be an
experiment and learned and adapted accordingly. They were "in it
together" and consequently expectations and behaviors within the process
were very different than they were in the traditional planning process;
views of responsibilities differed; the Forest Service planner's role
was more flexible and adaptive; hence, those involved seemed more open,
forgiving and motivated by the process. This is what collaboration is
all about, working together on issues of mutual concern in a manner that
best fits the needs of the people, place, and issues of concern.

**Organizing for learning will mean rethinking how the Forest Service is
structured**. Stewardship capacity cannot be effectively established
without an organizational context that promotes ongoing learning and
appropriate change. Like in communities, organizational learning is the
ability to learn from experience, remember the lessons, and create new
approaches to test. Learning is an on-going process, but the capacity to
develop institutional memory is an essential element for effective,
long-term learning.

The Forest Service is a large organization, with its own internal mix of
knowledge, values, skills, experiences, creativity and attitudes towards
change. Adoption of new approaches to planning will not come about
overnight. As one Regional Planner commented to COS, "we can't turn on a
dime." Consequently, one key element of a different approach to planning
must be that it is structured to encourage ongoing learning across the
agency. New mechanisms need to be put in place to foster this essential
understanding, learning and skills-building.

### Key characteristics of learning organizations

Organizational learning and change requires a supportive and open
environment in which the organization \-- both its leadership and its
members \-- *want to learn* and are *willing to change*. This desire to
learn and willingness to change cannot be forced from the top down nor
acted upon at lower levels without *approval and support* from above. An
organizational desire to learn comes from a common understanding of the
need for change and a shared perspective on the direction that change
should take. In other words, it needs a vision that *all* involved find
compelling and motivating.

Healthy and dynamic organizations have diverse activities occurring
simultaneously within them. In particular, they encourage
experimentation and learning in times of crisis. In times of change, it
is particularly important for an organization to support those who are
willing to take risks and try new things. Organizations can provide
opportunities for evaluation of what can be learned from the experiments
of risk-takers in order to create organizational learning from
individual experiences. Organizations can create processes to diffuse
innovations throughout the organization and support the application of
new approaches. Individual learning is important as a first step, but
organizations learn through social learning and need to become
comfortable and capable of reflecting on their goals and the methods of
achieving them in light of experience and new conditions.

A synthesis of the core findings contained in the organizational
learning and change literature suggests principles that the Forest
Service might consider as it begins pursuing new approaches to planning
and management. Very briefly, the key characteristics of learning
organizations are that they:

> 1\) recognize that they need to be learning and acting on that
> learning;
>
> 2\) view their task as an experiment; and recognize that the point of
> an experiment is to learn from its results and modify succeeding steps
> accordingly;
>
> 3\) encourage team approaches that bridge skills, expertise, and
> interests;
>
> 4\) lend helping hands and share ideas and responsibilities;
>
> 5\) provide the flexibility that prompts creativity and innovation;
>
> 6\) learn from what hasn't worked;
>
> 7\) shine spotlights on endeavors that did work;
>
> 8\) provide skills, training, resources and similar kinds of support;
>
> 9\) have constructive feedback loops in place;
>
> 10\) have champions who provide the leadership and enthusiasm for the
> learning process; and,

11) support and encourage, but seldom dictate,

> 12\) encourage independent review.

#  Organizational learning is a process that rests on the ability of an organization to recognize the lessons of experience, use an adaptive approach to developing and carrying out policies, and engage others in the continuous review of goals and methods.

**Encouraging Collaborative Stewardship as a Path to Sustainability**

In sum, sustainability can be better achieved by taking an integrative
democratic approach that works with people, communities, tribes,
businesses and governments to conserve the lands within and around the
national forests and grasslands. Policies and projects will need to be
developed and implemented through collaborative relationships within
clusters of organizations -- other public agencies, non-governmental
organizations, businesses, community associations, and interested
citizens -- based on shifting alliances centered around the
accomplishment of specific programs or policies. No longer can agencies
acting alone carry out conservation strategies that involve large areas,
numerous resources, and multiple interested parties. Rather, effective
planning and implementation entails building strong relationships with
other agencies, organizations, governments and individuals whose formal
programs or informal efforts can contribute to achieve a common goal.

# Proposed actions and Recommendations

1\. Formation of Advisory Boards

In order to enhance social sustainability, the planning process must
invite participation by all interested individuals and groups from the
beginning. Furthermore, the process for communication needs to be
institutionalized so that it is continuous and continuously accessible.
To that end, National Forests (or aggregates of national forests, as
appropriate) should establish formal groups to discuss the management of
the forest in its broad ecological and social context. These groups
should contain representatives of the diversity of interested
institutions and individuals.

NFMA includes the authorization for the convening of advisory boards as
part of the overall processes for public participation.

[Sec. 14 Public Participation and Advisory Boards:]{.underline}

(b) In providing for public participation in the planning for and
    management of the National Forest System, the Secretary, pursuant to
    the Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770) and other
    applicable law, shall establish and consult such advisory boards as
    he deems necessary to secure full information and advice on the
    execution of his responsibilities. The membership of such boards
    shall be representative of a cross section of groups interested in
    the planning for and management of the National Forest System and
    the various types of use and enjoyment of the lands thereof. (16
    U.S.C. 1612)

Although some forests had advisory boards in the past, few are formally
recognized today, largely for reasons beyond the control of the Forest
Service. It may be worth revisiting the concept now. While not every
forest needs an advisory board, some may. For example, where issues are
complex and actively interested parties are numerous, an advisory board
would provide the opportunity to gain representative, structured,
focused public interactions.

Formal advisory boards, chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, will not always be necessary but in many instances could provide an
immediate, legitimate, representative structure providing a ready
interface for the agency and the public. Ideally, advisory boards would
be a public forum that is predictable, understood, and ever present. In
addition, they could facilitate the organization of various localized
efforts to address issues of specific concern or work with localized
small landscape plan. Overtime, the discussions hosted by advisory
boards can build the trust necessary for people to engage on the issues
of direct concern to them, without necessarily feeling they have to be
vigilant about all issues all of the time.

2\. The planning process should include a qualitative assessment of
social sustainability as part of large-scale landscape planning. The
nature of the assessment should be designed for each landscape, to
account for the specific condition of the local economic, social, and
cultural community.

**Chapt 3A. Diversity of Plant and Animal Communties and the Productive
Capacity of the Land**

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPOSED ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY REGULATION.

Because ecological sustainability is the foundation of national forest
stewardship, the Committee believes that a strong provision on
ecological sustainability must be included in the regulations. While
some degree of agency discretion is desirable for administering
ecological sustainability, we believe that specific language is
necessary to provide rigor and scientific context for this critical
issue. Accordingly, the Committee has drafted a proposed regulation on
ecological sustainability and recommends it to the Forest Service and
the Secretary.

We consider the protection of ecological biodiversity at three
hierarchical levels --- ecosystems (including landscapes), species, and
genes --- all of which are necessary parts of a strategy to achieve
ecological sustainability. Although all three levels of diversity are
essential to the production of nature's goods, services, and values, the
most developed scientific knowledge and assessment strategies relevant
to broad scale forest management occur at the ecosystem (especially
landscape scales) and species levels. Accordingly, this section
primarily addresses ecosystem and species diversity.

Explicitly describing and managing all elements of diversity and their
interconnections within a single assessment or planning effort is beyond
the capacity of the agency. The challenge in providing for both
ecosystem and species diversity, therefore, is to identify surrogates
that rely on a subset of ecological measures, that are sensitive to
management, and that are indicative of overall biodiversity.

In the regulation that follows, we emphasize the protection of ecosystem
diversity and species diversity in a two phase approach. First, we call
for sustaining the variety and functions of ecosystems across multiple
spatial scales, from microsites to large landscapes, to provide for
ecological conditions that maintain spatial pattern, structure, species
composition, and natural dynamics of these ecosystems. Key habitats to
sustain include fine-scale biological features such as fallen trees on
the forest floor, or unique physical features such as seeps or springs,
as well as coarse-scale features such as old growth forests and
wetlands. Disturbance processes, such as fires, landslides, and floods,
must also be sustained to meet these ecological goals. Often the
historical level and variation in these features and processes are used
as a reference point in defining whether forests, rangelands, and
watersheds are in a sustainable condition or how their condition might
need to be altered to achieve sustainability. In this approach, we
attempt to maintain the diversity of native plant and animal communities
and the productive capacity of ecological systems by providing for the
habitats and ecological processes that have formed these ecosystems.

### Second, we call for the agency to provide directly the ecological conditions necessary to protect and, as necessary, restore habitat for the viability of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and of "focal" species that indicate habitat conditions for a broader suite of species. This provision serves two purposes: 1) to test the degree to which the effort to maintain ecosystem diversity (first phase) is sufficient to protect habitat for particular species, and 2) to adjust and improve the conservation strategies of the first phase to address the habitat needs of particular species of concern. In the terminology of the times, this second phase uses a "fine filter" to catch the requirements for species that fall through the "coarse screen" of the first phase. As the agency becomes more and more effective in applying the "coarse filter" approach to ecological sustainability, it should need fewer and fewer adjustments when it addresses the requirements of particular species.

### In the proposed regulation that follows, the Forest Service has leeway to develop and apply scientific methodologies. This is consistent with the Committee's view that the planning regulations generally should provide discretion to Forest Service officials in order to promote creativity and allow for change over time. The agency will decide the appropriate scale --- for example, particular watersheds or landscapes --- for assessing ecosystem diversity. Forest Service research scientists and resource specialists have broad latitude in selecting focal species and in choosing a method to determine species viability. In the area of genetic diversity, where the research is not as advanced as with ecosystem and species diversity, the proposed regulation does not include specific requirements. It should be noted that, in other sections of this report, we recommend periodic checks on the consistency of the approaches taken to apply this regulation with the state of scientific and technical knowledge.

The Forest Service has maintained that the existing regulation
addressing species viability, 36 CFR Sec. 219.19, needs to be amended
because it creates an impossible task for the agency. Among other
things, the regulation provides that the agency must "ensure" viable
populations. Of course, the Forest Service could never accomplish this
in a literal sense because many factors --- most notably resource
development outside the national forest boundaries or natural phenomena
such as El Niño --- remain beyond the agency's control. While the courts
have given the Forest Service considerable leeway in administering the
regulation, we agree that it is appropriate to revise the current
regulation.

The species diversity provision of the Committee's proposed regulation
seeks to define a framework for specific prescriptions yet remains
pragmatic. The provision focuses on the intent of Forest Service
decisions, with a clear obligation to conserve species, yet recognizes
that some conditions and decisions may be beyond the agency's control.
As an overall matter, the thrust of the proposed regulation is to leave
the means of achieving the goals of species diversity to agency research
scientists and resource specialists; the Committee recognizes that the
science on biodiversity is evolving rapidly and that agency research
scientists and resource specialists need flexibility to respond to the
advances that surely will come. Thus the level of habitat protection
necessary to achieve viability remains a matter of technical and
scientific judgment. As an example, the Northwest Forest Plan defined a
threshold level of habitat condition for species viability that was used
to screen different alternatives relative to their achievement of
viability. We view that approach as consistent with the regulation
suggested here.

While the agency should choose the analytical methods, the Committee
intends that the Forest Service rigorously adhere to the goal of
achieving species viability. The key phrase is in section D(2) of the
proposed regulation: "The decisions of resource managers must be based
upon the best available scientific information and analysis to provide
ecological conditions necessary to protect and ,as necessary, restore
habitat for the viability of focal species and for threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species." By the phrase "based upon the best
available scientific information and analysis, the Committee means that
such information and analysis will be used, understood, and relied upon.
Managers must hew toward viability. Species viability is at the center
--- scientifically, economically, socially, and morally --- of natural
resources stewardship, and the Forest Service should take a strong stand
in its agency regulations.

This proposed regulation is set forth in full below.RECOMMENDATION 2

Committee's Proposed Regulation on Ecological Sustainability

36 CFR Sec. 219.\_\_\_\_ Ecological Sustainability.

A. Goals. Nature provides many goods, services, and values to humans.
These ecological benefits occur as two major, interdependent forms: the
variety of native plants and animals, and the products of ecological
systems, such as clean water, air, and fertile soil. The most
fundamental goal of the National Forest System is to maintain and
restore ecological sustainability --- the long-term maintenance of the
diversity of native plant and animal communities and the productive
capacity of ecological systems. Ecological sustainability is the
foundation of national forest stewardship and makes it possible for the
national forests to provide a wide variety of benefits to present and
future generations.

B. Diversity. Ecosystems are inherently dynamic; changes regularly
result from natural events such as floods, fire, or insect outbreaks.
Human intervention, such as through forest cutting and water diversions,
also is often substantial. Thus, because species must have the
capability and opportunity to respond adaptively to changes in their
environment, species diversity and ecosystem productivity can only be
sustained if the essential elements of the natural dynamics of
ecosystems are recognized and accommodated when human intervention
occurs. Planners and managers must apply the best available scientific
information and analysis so that the diversity and adaptive capability
of ecosystems will be maintained and restored.

1\. Levels of diversity. Ecological diversity must be considered at
three hierarchical levels --- ecosystems, species, and genes --- all of
which are necessary parts of a strategy to sustain species values and
ecological goods and services. Ecosystem diversity, including landscape
diversity, is the coarsest level of resolution in this hierarchy.
Ecosystems are physical environments and associated communities of
interacting plants and animals. Ecosystem diversity can be described by
the variety of components, structures, and processes within an ecosystem
and variety among ecosystem types and functions across broad areas such
as watersheds, landscapes, and regions. Ecosystem diversity provides
essential elements for sustaining individual species and the productive
capacity of ecosystems. Species diversity refers to variation in the
number and relative abundance of species (including subspecies and
distinct populations) within a given area. To maintain species
diversity, individual species must have the capability and opportunity
to respond adaptively to their environment. Genetic diversity, at the
finest level of resolution in this hierarchy, refers to the degree of
variation in heritable characteristics (including life histories) within
and among individual organisms and populations.

2\. Use of surrogate approaches. Biological diversity is expressed at a
variety of spatial and temporal scales. Explicitly describing and
managing all elements of diversity and their interconnections within a
single assessment or planning effort is beyond the capacity of the
agency. Thus planners must identify surrogate approaches that rely on a
subset of ecological measurements that are sensitive to management and
indicative of overall biodiversity. Although all three levels of
diversity are essential to providing ecological sustainability, the most
developed scientific knowledge and assessment strategies relevant to
broad scale forest management occur at the ecosystem (especially
landscape scales) and species levels. Accordingly, this section
primarily addresses ecosystem and species diversity.

C. Ecosystem diversity. The first step in providing for ecological
sustainability is to strive to sustain the variety and functions of
ecosystems across multiple spatial scales from microsites to large
landscapes in order to maintain the diversity of native plant and animal
communities and the productive capacity of ecological systems.

1\. Management standards: ecosystem integrity. Ecosystem integrity means
an ecosystem that, at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, maintains
its characteristic diversity of major functional groups, productivity,
soil fertility, and rates of biogeochemical cycling in the presence of
the cumulative effects of the human and natural disturbance regimes. The
decisions of resource managers must be based upon the best available
scientific information and analysis to provide for ecological conditions
that support ecosystem integrity sufficient to meet the goals of this
section. These conditions will serve as a "coarse filter" in providing
for species diversity and ecosystem productivity. As part of this
effort, planning must address instream flow needs and, where
appropriate, establish the quantity and quality of water needed to
fulfill such instream flow needs.

2\. Use of regional assessments. Management standards should be
developed in regional assessments based on scientific principles and
knowledge of local conditions. As national forests and grasslands may
comprise only a portion of the landscape under consideration,
coordination with other landowners and institutions concerning probable
future conditions is critical. Planning documents must explicitly set
forth the constraints and opportunities for sustaining ecosystems
presented by jurisdictional patterns and varying land management
objectives. In general, in assessing and planning for ecosystem
integrity, the planning process must address the larger physical
landscape --- its historical legacy, its current condition, its
biological potential, and its expected changes over successional time
--- both within and outside of the national forests and grasslands.

3\. Validation. The assumption that coarse filter elements can serve as
a basis of sustaining native species diversity shall be validated
through monitoring and research. The best available scientific
information and analysis shall be used to assess this assumption in a
timely manner. If this assumption is invalid, then additional coarse
filter elements will be required or modification of the coarse filter
approach will be needed.

D. Species Diversity. A second step in providing for ecological
sustainability is to sustain the diversity of native plant and animal
communities through maintaining and restoring the viability of the
species that comprise them. The goal of this section is to provide the
ecological conditions necessary to protect and, as necessary, restore
the viability of native species.

1\. Focal Species. The primary obligation is to provide for the
diversity of native species. However, since it is not feasible to assess
the viability of all species, this section will employ focal species to
serve as a "fine filter" in providing plant and animal diversity. The
status of a single species, or group of species, such as a community
assemblage of species, can convey information about the status of the
larger ecological system in which it resides or about the integrity of
specific habitat or ecosystem processes. Regional assessments shall
select an appropriate number of focal species that represent the range
of environments within the planning area, serve an umbrella function in
terms of encompassing habitats necessary for many other species, play
key roles in maintaining community structure or processes, and that are
sensitive to the changes likely to occur.

2\. Management standards: species viability. The decisions of resource
managers must be based upon the best available scientific information
and analysis to provide ecological conditions necessary to protect and,
as necessary, restore the viability of focal species and of threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species.\* A viable species shall be defined
as consisting of self-sustaining populations that are (a)
well-distributed throughout their range, (b) sufficiently abundant, and
(c) have sufficient genetic 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.

3\. Validation. The assumption that focal species are providing reliable
information about the status and trend of species not being directly
monitored shall be validated through monitoring and research. The best
available scientific information and analysis shall be used to assess
this assumption in a timely fashion. If this assumption is invalidated
for a given focal species, then such focal species shall be replaced by
species that better meet the criteria.

E. Implementation. The determinations required regarding ecosystem
integrity and species viability shall be made at the appropriate
planning level. Decisions at each level must be consistent with such
determinations. For example, viability determinations for wide ranging
species are best made at the regional scale. Planners and managers must
then demonstrate consistency with this determination in all subsequent
decisions made at finer scales of planning, including the project level.

F. Monitoring. Effective monitoring is a critical aspect of achieving
ecological sustainability. Monitoring, which must be an ongoing process,
provides a better understanding of how to sustain ecosystems and serves
as an "early warning system" to detect declines in ecosystem integrity
and species viability before irreversible loss has occurred. The
monitoring program must designate critical values as indicators of
ecosystem integrity and species viability; develop methods for measuring
such critical values; obtain data to determine whether such critical
values are being attained; and interpret those data in relation to past
and potential management decisions. If such analysis and assessment
concludes that such critical values are not being attained, then the
appropriate plan must be re-evaluated to determined whether amendments
are necessary to comply with the provisions of this section.

G. Development and Evaluation of Conservation Strategies. Regional
assessments shall develop methods for assessing ecosystem diversity and
viability of the selected focal, threatened, endangered, and sensitive
species for use in planning and shall propose conservation strategies
for use in planning to test the effectiveness of the planning
alternatives in supporting ecosystem diversity and conserving the
selected species. The following steps should be taken: (a) an
evaluation, as part of the planning analysis of the ability of each
alternative to provide for ecological conditions necessary to support
ecosystem diversity and viability of the selected species, and (b) an
independent review by Forest Service and other scientists of the
effectiveness of the planning alternatives in meeting the goals of this
section. The results from this work should be made available to the
public.

\* NOTE: Sensitive species should be defined in the definitions section
of the planning regulations (219.2). This definition will read as
follows: Sensitive Species. Those species identified as sensitive under
the Forest Service's sensitive species program, currently set out in the
Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2670.

**3B. WATERSHEDS**

In simplest terms, a watershed comprises a land area that drains to a
common point. Thus, the use of watersheds as a planning unit focuses
efforts on a physically connected portion of a broader landscape that is
ultimately delineated by topographic features at the margins (i.e.,
ridges and watershed divides). Implicit in a watershed perspective is
the crucial role of gravity in the general movement of water, nutrients,
sediment, organic matter, and others in a down-slope or down-valley
direction. This movement of various ecosystem outputs and products to
lower elevations provides for process \"connectivity\" within the
watershed whereby downslope areas are \"connected\" or influenced by
activities and processes occurring on upslope areas. For example,
altered water quality in a headwater stream may contribute to downstream
changes in water quality or aquatic habitats. In similar fashion, a
landslide initiating along a ridge may carry far enough downslope such
that it significantly changes the character of a stream reach. While the
conveyance of ecosystem products within a watershed most commonly occurs
from higher to lower elevations, there are mechanisms by which materials
and processes are transferred in an up-valley direction. For example,
the return of adult salmon from ocean environments to their natal
streams for spawning also represents a significant nutrient capital.
After spawning and death of the adults, their carcasses provide a food
base and source of nutrients that are utilized by a wide variety of
aquatic and riparian biota. Additionally, alteration of a stream channel
at a specific location by natural or anthropogenic causes may initiate
the upstream migration of channel widening and gullying. The ecological
impact of these physical processes can cause more than an increase in
sediment production to downstream areas. In some situations they may
represent a major alteration to aquatic and riparian habitats or
significantly increase hillslope erosion rates. It is this
\"connectivity\" of various products and processes within watersheds
that can provide an important ecological basis for undertaking
watershed-based planning efforts.

From a human perspective, watersheds represent an prominent component of
our culture. We commonly name them after the streams and rivers, or
other landmarks, that arise within their topographic divides. Thus,
there is strong sense of place and identity associated with specific
watersheds that individuals of society can, and do, relate to. In many
instances, this \"sense of place\" may transcend other cartographic or
political designations society has developed (e.g., township and range,
county). Part of this human association with specific watersheds is
perhaps related to the fact that each watershed has unique features by
consequence of its position in a larger landscape, by its size, by the
character of its streams and rivers, by the spatial distribution of
vegetation types, by the types and abundance of animal species, or by
any combination of these and other factors. The underlying geology,
topography, climatic patterns, plant communities and their
distributions, drainage patterns, and other attributes differ for each
watershed. This uniqueness not only contributes to the appeal for using
watersheds as a basis for many types of planning efforts, but also
challenges managers of national forests and grasslands to understand and
consider these unique qualities in the development of plans and
management decisions.

While there are often distinct advantages of using watersheds to address
several types of ecological and regulatory concerns (e.g., fisheries,
riparian management, and clean water) on national forests and
grasslands, there are also situations where a differing landscape
perspective of ecosystem conditions and issues may be more useful and
more appropriate. For example, watersheds with subdued topographic
relief may not have well delineated watershed divides. Where watersheds
have significant relief, the distribution of specific forest types and
plant communities are typically arrayed along specific elevation bands;
these vegetation types usually connect with those of adjacent
watersheds. Because many animal species frequently range across
watershed divides, ecological assessments addressing wildlife and other
issues (e.g., recreation use) may best be addressed using planning areas
that involve multiple watersheds or components of them (e.g.,
physiographic region). Similarly, air quality issues may be best
addressed from an \"airshed\" perspective. The important point with
regard to the selection of planning areas is to choose boundaries that
allow planners to efficiently focus on the issues to be addressed while
also allowing collaborators to effectively participate in the planning
process.

Watershed Integrity and Restoration

Because watersheds are typically imbedded within broader biophysical
regions, their individual characteristics, functions, and processes have
an important role in the maintenance of biodiversity. And, while
watersheds per se are simply geographic areas, the degree to which
ecosystem functions and process operate within them provides an
important perspective regarding the overall \"integrity\" (i.e., the
quality or state of being unimpaired, sound) of any given watershed. A
loss or degradation of watershed integrity can occur in many ways \-- a
loss or reduction in specific species or their abundance, a change in
the timing, amount, or quality of ecosystem outputs, or some combination
of these and other factors. Historically, a wide number of anthropogenic
uses have occurred on national forests and grasslands; many of these
have contributed to altering watershed integrity, both locally and at
landscape scales. For example, loss of watershed integrity might be
represented by a reduction in beaver populations, alteration in the
abundance and distribution of wild ungulates, a change in fire regimes,
extensive use of short-rotation and even-aged silvicultural systems,
modification of streamflow and sediment regimes, introduction of exotic
plant and animal species, season-long grazing, high density recreation
use, private landuses associated with adjacent landowners (particularly
where mixed ownership patterns prevail), and others. Because
anthropogenic effects at a variety of landscape scales, either
individually or collectively, have influenced the character and
integrity of many national forests and grasslands, there is an
increasing need to protect those areas where watershed integrity remains
and to restore those areas where it has been significantly modified.

Watershed protection has always been a central theme in national forest
law and policy. When Congress authorized the President to establish
forest reserves in the 1891 Creative Act, the overwhelming reason was to
meet the request of municipalities and irrigation districts for
watershed protection. In the 1897 Organic Act, the first listed purpose
of the forest reserves was \"securing favorable conditions of water
flows\". Timber production was the other announced purpose but logging
proponents regularly assured Congress that watershed functions would not
be compromised. The Weeks Act of 1911 was also a watershed protection
statute. The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 listed watershed
purposes as one of the multiple uses and, taking the long view, provides
for \"the maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level of regular or
periodic output\" of the multiple uses \"without impairment of the
productivity of the land.\" While the NFMA of 1976 indicates timber,
range, and other resources were important multiple uses of National
Forest System Lands, this law also had provisions directed at the
protection of watercourses and watershed conditions. Furthermore,
Congressional findings in the NFMA emphasized the importance of
long-term sustainability: \"Sec. 2. (6) the Forest Service\....has both
a responsibility and an opportunity to be a leader in assuring that the
Nation maintains a natural resource conservation posture that will meet
the requirements of our people in perpetuity\"

Interestingly, the NFMA law provides few watershed constraints related
to livestock grazing, instream modifications, mining, recreation, or
other practices that can potentially cause serious and adverse effects
to watershed conditions, species viability, or aquatic habitat. If
protection of relatively intact terrestrial, riparian, or aquatic
systems and the restoration of others is a National Forest System goal,
it would seem that proponents of a particular landuse must be able to
substantiate the compatibility of that use relative to protection and
restoration goals of national forests and grasslands.

Where watershed conditions, functions, or processes on national forests
and grasslands have been significantly altered by human activities, the
restoration of those conditions, functions, and processes should assume
a high priority. From an aquatic perspective, the National Research
Council (1992) defined restoration as representing:

\"reestablishment of pre-disturbance aquatic functions and related
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics;\...it is a holistic
process not achieved through the isolated manipulation of individual
elements\". From a larger watershed or ecosystem perspective,
restoration should also include the conditions, functions, and processes
of riparian and terrestrial ecosystems.

Restoration of watersheds and their ecosystems can often represent a
major scientific and management challenge. Forest and range systems are
relatively complex (have many components and processes), are adaptive
(conditions and the biota may respond over time to changing
environmental conditions and human uses), and their responses to
environmental conditions and human uses are often non-linear (e.g.,
antagonisms and synergisms are common). While \"restoration science\" is
currently developing a better understanding of factors affecting
restoration trajectories of various ecosystems, managers have few models
of restoration success from which to emulate in their planning efforts.
Never-the-less, some restoration principles are beginning to emerge:

\(1\) The historic range of natural variability of ecosystem conditions
and processes at watershed and bioregional scales needs to be considered
and understood as a context within which to consider planning decisions
across a variety of spatial scales.

\(2\) An important component of natural systems is that they have
developed in conjunction with, and in response to, disturbance regimes
(e.g., varying hydrologic patterns at landscape and micrometeorologic
scales, fires, insects, and diseases, etc.). Thus, where such regimes
have been significantly altered, their reestablishment will generally be
a high priority.

\(3\) Because vegetation is a key component of natural ecosystems and
often experiences the effects of landuse activities (e.g., grazing,
timber harvest, fire control policies), the ecological role of plant
species and communities needs to be understood relative to terrestrial,
riparian, and aquatic systems. While some of this information is
available in the scientific literature, it will almost always be
incomplete at some level, or it may not be fully applicable to specific
watershed conditions. Thus, local \"reference sites\" or demonstration
areas of functionally intact plant communities need to be identified,
protected, and used to gain local understanding and experience of
related functions and processes.

\(4\) The history of resource development and landuse patterns
associated with national forests and grasslands needs to be understood
within watersheds and across bioregions. This information may be
critical for not only understanding the present status and trends of
various resources but also identifying potential reasons for existing
conditions. Because many watershed effects have occurred prior to the
current generation of resource managers, understanding historical trends
in resource conditions often provides important insights for developing
restoration strategies and plans.

**CHAPTER 3. INTERPRETING THE NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT IN THE
CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABILITY**

**3D CONSIDERATION OF THE SILVICULTURAL ASPECTS OF NFMA**

Silviculture is the process whereby humans tend, harvest, and
re-establish forest stands and landscapes. The various silvicultural
practices, such as timber harvest and prescribed burning, can assist in
the attainment of stand-level management objectives relative to species
composition and structure and in the attainment of landscape objectives

relative to the abundance, size, shape, and pattern of patches of
different stand conditions. Many stand and landscape objectives can be
expressed in terms of these variables and they should be the focus of
regulations giving silvicultural instruction for land and resource
planning.

Under ecosystem management, there is a general desire for these actions
to emulate, to some degree, the natural disturbance processes such as
fire, wind, insects, and disease in the effect they have on the forest.
This applies both at the stand and landscape levels. In managed forests,
regeneration methods (clearcut, shelterwood, selection) can be analogous
to natural coarse scale disturbances which have periodically reinitiated
succession. These methods, in fact, represent a gradient of disturbance
intensities. Silvicultural systems (even-aged, two-aged, uneven-aged),
achieved and maintained through various silvicultural activities, are
analogous to structural conditions resulting from different types and
intensities of disturbances.

The classic silvicultural systems were designed to achieve natural
regeneration, as the technology for planting stock (seedlings) had not
yet developed. We suggest that, for reasons of genetic diversity,
natural regeneration and the systems that provide it be considered
specifically in the regulatory process.

In our discussion below, we emphasize the need for regional assessment
to provide guidance on the characteristics of stands and landscapes that
historically occurred in the different forest types and landscape units.
This information would then be used, in turn, to guide and limit the
silvicultural approaches to achieving stand and landscape

objectives, including silvicultural systems and restocking standards.

Whatever regulations are written, it is important that they allow
flexibility in designing methods and systems to create and maintain the
desired species compositions, stand structures, and abundance, size,
shape, and pattern of forest stands of different condition on the
landscape. NFMA was most prescriptive in its silvicultural sections:
compare the very prescriptive sections below, for example, with the
broad language on biological diversity in NFMA. We believe that adequate
flexibility is provided for conditions of today, and hopefully for
tomorrow, by our interpretations of the law below.

Silvicultural Aspects of NFMA

*6(g)(3)(D) \"\...permit increases in harvest levels based on
intensified management practices \... \[the \"allowable cut effect\"\]*

From a silvicultural perspective, the linkage between intensified
management practices and increases in harvest levels is certainly
understandable. Intensified management often means increased growth
which, in turn, translates into increased harvest levels under an
even-flow (or nondeclining yield) constraint. The reality, however, is
that the intensive silviculture implied in this provision has not always
materialized in the past, and it is problematic as to whether it will be
a primary focus of future investment on much of the National Forest
System lands.

Allowable sale quantities (ASQs) for many forest plans were derived from
stand-level growth and yield estimates based on assumptions of fairly
intensive silvicultural practice (e.g., precommercial thinning,
commercial thinnings, fertilization in some cases). The stand-level
projections, in general, were reasonable if the intensive silviculture
had been done. In many cases, however, these systems have not been
implemented at the scales envisioned in the plans. For this and other
reasons, the projected ASQs have proven overly optimistic. If estimates
of future timber yields are to be part of planning analysis, they should
be based on realistic land-use allocations as well as realistic
assumptions concerning investment in silvicultural practices. Put
another way, a silviculture system designed to capture the potential
timber productivity of a site is simply a theoretical exercise if there
is little likelihood of implementing the system.

*6 (g) (3) (E) insure that timber will be harvested from National Forest
System lands only where \... (ii) there is assurance that such lands can
be adequately restocked within five years after harvest.*

In this context \"harvest\" applies only to regeneration cuttings, i.e.,
harvests which are intended to result in the establishment of a new age
class such as selection, clearcutting, or the regeneration harvest of a
shelterwood or seed tree system We presume that it does not refer to
thinning, sanitation or other harvests not intended to regenerate a new
stand. We believe that the intent of this provision is to minimize
situations in which combinations of difficult sites and inappropriate
silvicultural methods result in regeneration failures. There are still,
for example, many acres of poorly stocked spruce-fir clearcuts in the
Central Rockies dating from the 1960s.

Two major questions immediately surface in interpreting this
provision: 1) when does the five year clock begin in regeneration
methods that remove the overstory in a sequence of harvests? and 2) does
the clause require that the sites in question "will be" restocked within
five years or "could be" restocked within that period?

We believe that "\...adequately restocked within five years after
harvest\" should correspond to the period following a regeneration
cutting, e.g., five years after clearcutting, five years after a
seedtree cutting, five years after an establishment cutting of a
shelterwood and five years after selection cutting. An alternative, and
the current regulation, would be to start the five year clock at the
final harvest, regardless of the silvicultural system employed. While
this alternative works in an acceptable way for clearcuts, it makes no
sense for other even-aged regeneration harvest methods, such as
shelterwood or seed tree, where some trees are retained after the
regeneration harvest to ameliorate microclimate impacts on regeneration
and/or provide seed for natural regeneration. With shelterwood or seed
tree systems, the biological clock should begin at the regeneration
harvest, not the final harvest: in these latter two systems, final
harvest is not intended to occur until regeneration is deemed
successful, at which time no clock should be necessary.

We further believe that the clause should be interpreted as "could be"
adequately restocked rather than "will be" adequately restocked within
constraints discussed below. Our reasoning is as follows. Under
ecosystem management, we believe that it will be important to consider
natural regeneration for maintenance of genetic diversity. Interpreting
the clause to mean that sites \"will be\" restocked within five years of
harvest rather than \"can be\" restocked could have a chilling effect on
the willingness of managers to give natural regeneration a chance.

Consider, for example, a situation in which a shelterwood is determined
to have a very high probability of achieving successful natural
regeneration and that this natural regeneration is considered
appropriate for maintenance of genetic diversity. If the expected
interval between good seed crops is several years, there is the distinct
possibility that, to insure success within the five-year window,
artificial regeneration will become the norm and perhaps even the
default. This may occur even though, under "natural disturbance" such as
a fire, regeneration on such sites may have taken more than five years,
on the average for re-establishment. This has important implications
ranging from economics to conservation biology. O\'Hara et al. (1994)
argue that \"it is ironic, and possibly prophetic, that well-meaning
policies designed to cure previous failings in forestry (regeneration
delays) have produced a legacy (high-yield stands with no range in age
and little species diversity) that is now under indictment.\"

Thus we make the following proposal:

1\) Any proposal for regeneration harvest should be based on the
objectives for the stand and broader landscape and on an assessment of
appropriate reproduction methods for each combination of major forest
type and landscape unit within each major region (see discussion
concerning 6 (g) (3) (F) and 6 (g) (3) (F) (iv) below). The regional
assessment would highlight the potential for successful regeneration on
the major forest types and conditions likely to be encountered in the
region as a beginning point in this analysis. Through this process, the
assessment would rule out forest types/landscape conditions in which it
had not been shown, though experience or research, that it was possible,
using established techniques, to restock an area within five years after
regeneration harvest. \"Within five years after harvest\" should
correspond to the period following a regeneration cutting, e.g., five
years after clearcutting, five years after a seedtree cutting, five
years after an establishment cutting of a shelterwood and five years
after selection cutting. This analysis, would serve as a first step in
addressing lands "marginal" for restocking within five years.

2\) An assessment of the potential for artificial and natural
regeneration should accompany each silvicultural prescription associated
with a proposed regeneration harvest. Regeneration harvest can be
considered only if the site can be adequately restocked within five
years after regeneration harvest.

3\) In the silvicultural prescription, the basis for a conclusion that
the site can be successfully regenerated within five years would be
presented. Potential evidence for this conclusion could include
successful regeneration within five years on similar sites, based on
research findings or past experience. This process serve as a second
screen in eliminating lands "marginal" for restocking.

4\) Natural regeneration would be permitted, even if it took more than
five years, if conditions were being established through regeneration
harvest that would allow for restocking as has "naturally" occurred
throughout history in the type and condition, and is meeting appropriate
ecosystem goals. Permanent openings many be created for wildlife habitat
improvement, vistas, recreational uses, and similar practices, but, for
the purposes of this section, successful natural regeneration of the
stand is the goal.

5\) Any determination of an allowable sale quantity must include
realistic calculations of the likely time until restocking, based on the
likely regeneration methods.

6\) We expect that the technical and scientific review of assessments,
strategic plans, and project implementation, discussed elsewhere in this
paper, will have a priority to examine the analysis and rationales
underlying regeneration guidance and decisions.

7\) Regional silvicultural guides incorporating ecosystem management
principles will be the primary guide for regional assessments concerning
the minimum number, size, distribution, species composition, and natural
restocking potential of regeneration. These guides will define adequate
restocking within the guidelines of regulations under 6(G)(3)(E).

*6 (g) (3) (F) \... insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting,
shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged
stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on the National Forest
System lands only where: (i) for clearcutting, it has been determined to
be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be
appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant
management plan.*

With respect to clearcutting, the intent of this clause seems fairly
obvious: clearcutting should be used only where it can be demonstrated
to be the best regeneration method for meeting the objectives for the
stand and landscape, and that it certainly should not be the default
method that it had become in the 1960s. There are many species and
ecosystems for which a convincing argument can be made for the
\"optimality\" of clearcutting. Such an argument could in principle be
made for most species which regenerate in essentially even-aged stands
following natural catastrophic stand-replacing disturbances (e.g., red
alder in the Pacific Northwest, lodgepole pine in the Rockies, aspen in
the Lake States). It should be noted, though, that the size, shape, and
pattern of opening from these natural catastrophic stand-replacing
disturbances varied considerably between these different species.

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

There is the additional requirement that strictly even-aged reproduction
methods and silvicultural systems, such as seed tree and shelterwood,
are to be used only when they, and presumably the even-aged stand
structures that result, meet explicit objectives of the plan. This
requirement provides a great deal of latitude, but seems to suggest that

strictly even-aged stand management should not be the default and that
alternatives should be seriously considered. It is important to note
that the requirement to explore alternatives to even-aged stand
management is not a requirement to adopt classic uneven-aged management.
Arguably, there is not a requirement to consider classic uneven-aged
management. Non-traditional reserve tree silvicultural systems can be
used to create and maintain a broad range of stand structures that fall
between the extremes of classic even-aged and uneven-aged silviculture.
The choice of an appropriate reproduction method and silvicultural
system needs to be made within the context of the regeneration ecology
of the species and the structural objectives for the stand and
landscape.

As discussed in the previous section, any proposal for even-aged
regeneration harvest should be based on the resource objectives for the
stand and landscape and an assessment of appropriate regeneration
methods for each combination of major forest type and landscape unit
within each major region. These assessments should also address the
size, shape, frequency, and pattern of these harvests (see discussion
concerning

6 (g) (3) (F) (iv) below).

At times there have been attempts to list the situations under which
clearcutting will be considered. We believe that this approach is
fraught with difficulties because of the impossibility of predicting all
the different situations that might occur. With such a list, forest
managers left to fit any of the circumstances under which they would
like to consider clearcutting into some category on the list, whether it
really fit or not, would lead to the inevitable cries of deception and
fraud. We believe that cases where managers would like to use
clearcutting should be clearly justified as the best regeneration method
for that situation and that each case should be judged on that
criterion.

*6(G)3(F)(iii) - cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended
to the extent practicable with the natural terrain;*

In general, there are abundant patch cuts where such blending with the
natural terrain has not been done, and others where it has been done
quite well. We believe the shaping of cut blocks has a critical visual
impact, and only through careful attention to shaping will the use of
clearcuts of whatever size be consistent with acceptable visual resource
impact. Straight lines are sometimes unavoidable, but we believe that
the intent of the law, even with the proviso \"to the extent
practicable\" needs to be reemphasized in the new regulations.

*6 (g) (3) (F) (iv) \... according to geographic areas, forest types, or
other suitable classifications the maximum size limits for areas to be
cut in one harvest operation \...*

At the time NFMA was passed, there was concern and controversy over the
large clearcut squares that were appearing on the national forests. Much
of this concern was from a visual perspective. This clause was one
attempt in NFMA to address the clearcutting issue and it unsightly
effects. Setting upper limits on clearcuts and other even-aged methods
seemed a useful way to address the problem at the time. In the context
of

ecosystem management, though, the limits can result in detrimental,
unintended effects.

Careless 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 we have become interested in
management (and silviculture) reflecting natural disturbance, it has
become less certain that simply restricting the size of the patch
created by even-aged harvest is the best approach for determining the
size of disturbance created through harvest. To emulate natural
disturbance, it may be important to set minimum sizes as well as
maximums and to have objectives for the overall pattern of disturbance
on the broader landscape.

Questions of disturbance sizes and patterns are of considerable
ecological, economic, and social importance and should be addressed in
regional assessments for each major forest type and landscape unit
within the region. The assessment should include an analysis of
appropriate sizes and patterns of disturbance and the types of
silvicultural systems potentially useful in the recreation of these
disturbance characteristics. Out of this analysis should come minimum
and maximum sizes of disturbances in different forest types and
landscapes and also guidance on frequency and pattern of disturbances
that should be sought.

**CHAPTER 4. A** **PLANNING APPROACH TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY AND
DEEPEN PUBLIC AND AGENCY ENGAGEMENT**

The primary purpose of land and resource planning on the national
forests is to sustain our watersheds, forests and rangelands and provide
for multiple use of these lands.

As discussed in other sections, the most fundamental goal of the
National Forest System is to maintain and restore ecological
sustainability --- the long-term maintenance of the diversity of native
plant and animal communities and the productive capacity of ecological
systems. To achieve this goal, planning must apply the best available
scientific information and analysis so that the diversity and adaptive
capability of ecosystems will be maintained and restored.

Building on the foundation of sustainable ecological systems, planning
should provide for sustainable contributions to our economic and
cultural systems and to our communities. To accomplish this goal,
planning should seek to provide a wide variety of uses, products,
values, and services to society.

A democratic process is the guiding framework for a planning process
capable of striving for ecological, social and economic sustainability.
Democratic processes rest on the premise that citizens should
participate in deliberating, forming and assessing public policies that
affect them. The planning process needs to integrate the identification,
analysis, and resolution of public issues of national, regional or local
interest with the development of scientifically-credible conservation
strategies. This challenge requires a multi-level planning process,
designed for flexible application depending on the geographic scope and
complexity of conservation strategies and public issues.

# SUSTAINABILITY\--THE TRADITIONAL FOCUS OF PLANNING

Over the last 400 years, an overriding goal of public forestry has been
to sustain the productive capacity of its forests. First in Europe and
then in the United States, foresters have attempted to meet this goal by
providing a sustained yield of commercial timber volume. As in Europe,
the emergence of forestry in the United States in the late nineteenth
century occurred after a long period of deforestation due to rapid
harvest to clear lands for agriculture and settlement, build cities,
provide fuel for individuals and commerce, and ship lumber to foreign
markets. The concept of sustained yield forestry stood in stark contrast
to this rapid harvest.

The forest reserve movement at the end of the nineteenth century sought
to protect watersheds and the productive capacity of the forests by
creating public forests. Advocates of forestry and conservation argued
that a public forestry based on sustained yield principles would provide
for both ecological and social sustainability\--overexploitation of
resources would be prevented and a continuous supply of wood available
to help stabilize local economies and communities.

From the very beginning, planning for the use and management of the
forest reserves, later renamed the National Forests, began with an
analysis of the sustained yield of timber. The size of the planning area
was a "working circle", or an area large enough to provide a local mill
with sufficient timber on a continuing basis. Regulation of use (timber,
grazing, mining, and recreation) and protection (from fire, insects and
disease, and poor timber harvest practices) were the primary roles of
public forest managers. As harvest levels rose after World War II,
management analysis focused more on timber yield estimates, the effects
of intensive management, and later, in the 1970s, on the environmental
and economic implications of allowing short periods of higher harvest
levels as compared to an "even-flow" policy.

The NFMA was written at a time of change in public values as expressed
in the Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the
Endangered Species Act, to name only a few of the many environmental
protection laws of the time. The NFMA called for public forest
management to explicitly address the environmental consequences of
commercial timber harvest and to designate areas that were unsuitable
for timber harvest as a result of environmental considerations. Thus,
"forest planning" focused on determining the sustained yield level of
timber harvest for each national forest, subject to providing at least
minimal levels of protection for species and ecosystems.

In the 1980s, scientific knowledge of ecosystems grew rapidly, and new
analysis technologies allowed complex interactions to be understood and
predicted based on different management scenarios. Management strategies
based on sustained yield of timber simply did not provide adequate
protection for many plant and animal species or for ecological system
functions necessary for long term productivity. In addition, in a
dynamic global economy, a localized emphasis on a sustained supply of
commercial timber could provide neither economic nor community
stability.

But the forest planning process was too far down the track to recall. So
the heart of the plans continued to be a sustained yield of commercial
timber volume. And, once completed, they were almost immediately made
obsolete, in many parts of the country, by the emerging emphasis on the
conservation of the diversity of plants and animals to ensure ecological
sustainability.

The purpose of this section is to suggest a planning process and
structure that first recognizes the maintenance of sustainable
ecological systems as the foundation of national forest management and
then, within that context, attempts to provide sustainable contributions
to the social and economic well-being of communities and the nation.
This chapter builds upon the existing legal framework for planning and
management in the Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) as
amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). It is also
consistent with criteria and indicators proposed in the Santiago
Agreement for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate
and Boreal Forests signed on February 3, 1995.

We begin with a discussion of the national assessment, program and
annual report required by the RPA. To provide an historical context in
which to understand the proposed planning structure, we describe the key
elements of the current system of planning. We then turn to a new
conceptual framework for planning that integrates information gathering,
public issue identification and deliberation, and collaborative
stewardship into a multi-level process designed for flexibility,
learning, and adaptive management.

# THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM

The RPA assessment was originally intended to be a vehicle by which the
status of all lands and resources in the United States would be
periodically assessed relative to current conditions and future
expectations. This information was anticipated as a tool for public and
private planning at all levels so as to better coordinate land uses
across multiple ownerships. Given its historical context, it especially
emphasized the supply and demand for the different multiple uses such as
timber and recreation across the different ownerships. It paid
relatively little attention to characterizing ecological conditions,
especially those that had a strong regional flavor such as threatened
and endangered species.

Today things have changed. Sustainable forest ecosystems are now a
global priority. Criteria and indicators for nations to use in assessing
the status of their forests have broad international agreement. The RPA
assessment can provide national level information on the current and
anticipated status of forests and land use at the national level. Thus,
the RPA assessment has a new role in providing national information to
the international community, and in addition, to providing a performance
assessment for the US on the status of our forests and other lands. This
performance assessment is directly linked to the Government Performance
and Results Act requirements. The role of RPA is essential in providing
a broad context for understanding the contribution of the national
forest system lands to the broad goal of sustainability. It cannot,
however, be expected to provide a detailed evaluation of ecological
sustainability in the different regions of the country. Developing that
information needs to be done through bioregional assessments as
discussed below.

The RPA national assessment of land and resources can contribute to
national forest planning in a number of ways: 1) It shapes our
understanding of the conditions on all forest and range lands across the
country as well as likely demand and supply considerations. The regional
analyses on forest and rangeland trends on nonfederal ownerships are
especially valuable. 2) It provides linkage to international ecological
and social issues like the role of forests in addressing global climate
change policy, protecting biodiversity, and sustaining temperate and
tropical forests. 3) It provides a forum for discussing the
institutional and policy framework for sustainability on diverse
ownerships, including the principles and mechanisms for sustainable
forest management on private forest lands. 4) It can highlight
ecological systems at risk.

The RPA Program was originally envisioned as a master plan for the
management of the national forests, and assumed that the inputs
(especially budgets) that would be needed to provide high levels of
outputs (especially commodities) would naturally follow. It has rarely
worked as intended in the 25 years since its passage. The RPA Program,
for all its good intentions, called for input and output goals that
become divorced from the land and the dynamic management that goes on at
the local level. Its targets have forever lagged behind the changing
conditions and values expressed at each unique National Forest and
Ranger District. In addition, both Presidents and Congress have largely
ignored the Program, responding more directly to their own priorities
for management of the National Forests and the realities of limited
budgets. Similarly, both Regions and National Forests have largely
ignored the RPA program in planning\--not a surprising result since it
is difficult to express the goals for management of each National Forest
as a set of functional resource production targets set at the national
level.

We believe that the RPA Program (and its successor) could provide
overall policy guidance for the National Forests by recognizing their
role in the context of other ownerships, as specifically required in the
law. At its best, the RPA program can be a **strategic vision** of the
management emphasis for the national forests in the context of the
management of all lands, including lands in other countries, pointing
out the unique contributions of the National Forests. With this vision
the RPA program would be a policy guide when developing the large and
small landscape plans discussed below. As an example, the recent
statement of the Chief of the Forest Service regarding the importance of
watershed protection in achieving ecological sustainability is the
beginnings of such a strategic vision. It is critical to distinguish a
strategic vision from a top-down strategic directive that is merely to
be implemented by lower level functionaries. Rather, a strategic vision
sets the course for the agency and across the country the tremendous
diversity of localities and special meanings of places are guided by
this vision in their conservation and management.

The Annual Report to Congress called for in the RPA is the direct
connection to the Government Performance and Reporting Act. The planning
process proposed below should make it possible to track actual
improvements in land and resource conditions, actual achievements given
budget appropriations, and necessary changes to meet the primary goals
of the national forest system. It is essential that the Annual Report
become an integral part of the overall planning process so that when
actual performance is assessed it is possible to identify needs for
strategic change, needs for new management approaches, needs for new
research, needs for new partnerships to achieve common goals. The Annual
Report would provide the "big picture" for the units of the national
forest system as they engage in their own annual performance review and
evaluation processes.

# A COMPARISON OF PLANNING STRUCTURES: EXISTING AND PROPOSED

## OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING APPROACH

The planning regulations now in effect were proposed in 1979 and revised
and approved in final form in 1982. The current regulations resulted in
three sub-national planning levels in addition to the national
Assessment and Program. Each planning level is considered a NEPA action,
and thus has an EA or an EIS associated with it.

Type of plan/ Geographic Purpose

responsible boundary

official

Regional guide/ Forest Service Reflect RPA goals and objectives;

Chief Region Display tentative RPA resource objectives

(targets) for each planning area; cover

standards and guidelines for addressing the

major issues which need to be considered at

the regional level to facilitate planning (maximum clearcut sizes,
approp. silvic. method, management strategies for wide-

ranging species, etc.)

Forest plan/ National Develop multiple use goals and objectives,
Regional forester Forest identify the quantities of goods and services

> to be produced, subject to minimum management requirements for
> protection of wildlife habitat, soil and water quality.
>
> Ensure viability of vertebrate species.
>
> Address local issues and develop alternatives showing minimum resource
> development and maximum biological potential, with costs and benefits.
> Toward these purposes, allocate land among different management
> emphases, set standards and guidelines for mgt. within each emphasis,
> calculate the land suitable for timber production, calculate an upper
> limit on timber removals, estimate ecological, economic, and social
> effects on a
>
> programmatic basis; set project goals and aggregate budget and human
> resource requests for projects. Develop monitoring and evaluation
> requirements. At least one alternative was to be directed toward
> meeting the RPA targets stated in Regional Guidance.

Project/ Depends on Propose actions to achieve goals of

?? objective of plan, assess site-specific effects;

project estimate budget needed and outputs that will result. Mitigate
adverse environ. effects

The current planning process has ten steps intended to be followed in
order, because they mirror the process requirements for developing an
EIS. The initial steps identify public issues and management concerns,
define planning criteria and develop an assessment of the current
conditions and management of the national forest or grassland. This
assessment is called the "analysis of the management situation", and it
included: demand and supply conditions for resource commodities,
services as well as their production potentials. These analyses were
production oriented calling for benchmark analysis of the minimum and
maximum physical and biological production capabilities of significant
goods and services with associated costs and benefits, monetary
benchmarks that maximize present net value of major commodity resources,
estimates of current production of goods and services, and projections
of demand.

Thus, although the RPA expected that "the new knowledge derived from
coordinated public and private research programs will promote a sound
technical and ecological base for effective management, use and
protection of the Nation's renewable resources" (RPA Sec. 2(4)), the
1982 Regulations reflected the commodity production orientation of the
time. As a result, the information developed for and used in forest
planning did not generally address the ecological issues of increasing
concern for scientists and the public, and therefore led to
underestimated or downplayed environmental effects of commodity
production in EIS analyses.

# PROPOSED APPROACH

Our proposed approach retains a hierarchical planning structure,
emphases the use of ecological boundaries, especially those that have
social meaning, separates the information gathering from planning and
urges a collaborative approach with other federal agencies, tribes,
state and local governments, and the public. It is intentionally more
flexible than the current design to allow for a diversity of approaches
across the country and to encourage experimentation. The process,
though, has a set of core design characteristics that we feel are
essential for effective planning, and by which any planning process and
structure should be judged:

1\) the development and use of scientifically credible strategies for
the protection of species and ecosystems,

2\) a set of goals and proposed actions for management of these forests
that puts them on the path to ecological sustainability, contributes to
economic and social sustainability, and provides for the multiple uses.

3\) a deepened public engagement in planning, including development of a
sense of joint inquiry into the conditions, capabilities and potential
of the national forests, the encouragement of joint public/agency
stewardship of these lands, and the restoration of trust in Forest
Service management.

4\) a deepened agency engagement in planning by connecting planning more
centrally to the issues faced by national forest managers,

5\) the encouragement of organizational learning through adaptive
management, information sharing, ongoing public dialogue, and
independent review,

**A key component of this process is that public issues are addressed at
the scale appropriate to the issue**. Thus, issues concerning the
conservation of wide-ranging species must be addressed at the scale of
the range of the species. It is at this scale that conditions can be
assessed and conservation strategies formulated. These large-scale
conservation strategies set the ecological context for more localized
planning processes. However, this should not be understood as a
"top-down" process, but rather a multi-level planning process based on
the scale and scope of public issues.

Public issues range from national to regional to local. Our planning
process relies on the sense of public identity with national forests to
animate and coordinate a public planning processes. However, the
planning areas typically follow ecological and social boundaries rather
than administrative ones. These planning areas will be delineated based
on both the logical ecological area for analysis and the social meanings
attached to the landscape. As a multi-level process, our planning
structure is highly adaptable to issues of multiple scales, issues which
overlap administrative and jurisdictional boundaries, and issues that
necessitate a comprehensive understanding of all lands in a region.
Rather than a rigid structure, we intend our process to provide an open
architecture that can be adapted to regional and local conditions and
that enhances the building of collaborative stewardship capacity.

# Assessments

Within an issue-based planning process, independent information that is
considered an objective and realistic protrayal of conditions is a
necessary basis for public deliberation. We believe that it is important
to recognize assessment as a distinct task organized as a joint inquiry
involving the federal agencies, other governments, and the public. It
should meet the expectations of RPA for creating "coordinated public and
private research" relationships to "promote a sound technical and
ecological base" of information.

In the past, the analysis of ecological and social conditions and trends
was done, to one degree or another, as part of regional guidance and
national forest planning. We believe that assessments have such an
important role in providing a credible information base for national
forest planning that they should be organized as a separate task.
Assessments are not decisions and should not be made to function under
the NEPA processes associated with planning. By recognizing assessment
as a separate task, everyone in the assessment process will more easily
focus on conditions, trends, problems and risks instead of on the
development of planning alternatives.

In our approach, the way information is developed and synthesized and by
whom is as important as what the content. Based on our analysis of
various current assessment processes, we think that assessments can have
a number of functions\--identifying issues of special importance,
creating forums for joint learning between scientists, managers and the
public, improving inventories, encouraging landscape level thinking that
transcends national forest and agency boundaries, building cohesion
among different levels of the Forest Service and between the Forest
Service and other agencies, and providing a context for national forest
planning. For participants, they also help develop leadership abilities
and provide a crash course in adaptive management.

Another lesson from our analysis of current assessment processes is that
just producing information is not enough. Assessments provide the
context for proposing ways to achieve long-term goals of sustainability.
Thus, our proposal includes an additional element at the bioregional
level\--the development and application of scientifically credible
procedures for evaluating ecological sustainability. The analysis of
ecological sustainability will require a critical mass of scientists,
working independently, but reporting periodically to a broader group to
enable critique, discussion, and joint learning. An example of this
approach is the recent work on aquatic ecosystems in the ICBEMP
(sidebar). Without the development of these scientifically credible
approaches to assessing the effect of planning alternatives on
ecological sustainability, it is difficult to see how planning the
management of the national forests can be successful. With the
development of these strategies, assessments should be able to prove
their worth to managers and planners.

In this process, it will still be important to retain the linkage
between assessment and planning. The primary purposes of assessments are
two-fold: first, to develop information related to striving for
ecological and social sustainability, and second, to develop the
organizational and social capacity for planning so that planning can
proceed. This linkage will help define not only the boundaries of the
assessments, but also their organization and staffing. Planners and
resource specialists need to participate in these assessments in order
to contribute their knowledge, better understand the body of information
that is produced, get experience with adaptive management processes, and
be better prepared to use the information in planning and management.

We envision two scales of assessments:

### Type Geographic Purpose

boundary

Bioregional Ecological Assess ecological sustainability (species

viability and ecosystem integrity) under

current polices across all ownerships.

Suggest strategies for sustaining ecological systems where problems are
detected. Assess the current and potential contributions

> of the national forests to economic and social well-being. Use a
> participatory approach as well as independent scientists to assess the
> social context and history of the region, including demographic
> changes, economic patterns and trends, and institutional arrangements.
> Address a variety of scientific and technical issues as suggested by
> public issue groups. Develop a sense of social identity with the
> region so as to allow local issues to be connected to a regional
> context.

Watershed Landform Use information from bioregionalassessments
Assessments and large landscape plans to

(landscape refine desired future conditions and pathways assessments) to
those conditions. Address local issues of ecological sustainability and

multiple use, including those defined by local issue groups. Use a
participatory

> approach to assess current economic and social conditions and pathways
> for long term social and economic sustainability.

**Planning**

The purpose of planning is to develop scientifically credible strategies
for ecological sustainability, options for multiple use management that
respond to public interests and issues, and the organizational capacity
to implement them. While the Forest Service can plan for its
contribution to these goals, it cannot necessarily carry them out alone.
Thus, planning has the third element listed above because several
federal agencies, as well as state and local governments and others need
to work with the Forest Service for it to achieve its goals. The more
that the planning process across federal agencies can be coordinated and
harmonized, the greater the capacity for a consistent conservation
strategies and policies to be formed and carried out. This is reason why
collaborative stewardship is so important to create as an outcome of the
planning process -- it makes implementation possible.

Recognizing these limitations to Forest Service planning, our approach
proposes a landscape scale, strategic planning level complemented by a
smaller scale integrated implementation planning level. In our view,
however, planning could be done through either two or three levels,
depending on whether strategies for ensuring ecological sustainability
are developed at the bioregional level separate from the large landscape
plans or as a part of them. We explain the planning hierarchy in terms
of a three-level approach and then also illustrate its structure when
two levels are sufficient.

Type of plan/ Geographic Purpose

responsible boundary

official

Bioregional Ecological Provide strategies to ensure sustainable

guidance/Regional ecological systems (species viability and

Forester ecosystem integrity) and sustainable

> multiple use options across large areas.

Large landscape Ecological/ Interpret strategies for ecological

plans/ social sustainability and provide for multiple use;

Forest address issues defined by public participants; Supervisor (s) set
desired future conditions for

different parts of the landscape

and actions permitted within them, choose

strategic pathways to move toward desired conditions, set input and
outcome measures for judging progress toward desired

> conditions, set land suitable for resource management, estimate
> ecological, economic, and social contributions on a programmatic
> basis. Develop monitoring and evaluation process, including
> independent review.

Small Ecological/ Propose actions that move toward desired

landscape social future conditions; consider all projects in

combination to the degree possible within

the planning area; estimate site-specific

effects; estimate budgets needed for action,

estimate outcomes that will result, estimate cumulative effects, provide
a context for action. Specify monitoring criteria and

> expected outcomes, including experimental efforts and areas of
> uncertainty.

This approach retains the three-tiered planning framework that has
developed over time based on the existing (1982) regulations: 1) overall
guidance at the "regional" level, 2) a second level, smaller in
geographic scope although still perhaps covering millions of acres, at
which the long-term plan is developed considering the multitude of
issues that surface during the planning process, and 3) a site-specific
level to develop the actions needed to carry out the long-term plan.
Based on the experience of the last 20 years, we would suggest a number
of changes and refinements in this overall approach to better address
the provision of ecological and social sustainability. Many of these
suggested changes are already being tried in different regions across
the country; in fact we learned of many of them from the critiques that
the Forest Service and others have done about planning and from our
meetings across the country with Forest Service employees and the
public:

[Focus bioregional guidance on the development of scientifically
credible strategies for ecologically sustainable use.]{.underline} In
the past regional plans often fell short in their guidance on ecological
sustainability. National forests, as a result, were left without a firm
policy foundation on which to build their plans. Significant effort in
the future in bioregional planning must be placed on constructing
scientifically-based strategies for the conservation of species and
ecosystems.

[Focus large landscape planning on desired future conditions and
outcomes and on the pathway to achieve these desired
states]{.underline}. In the past, national forest planning often focused
on the relatively short-term issues of land allocation and timber
harvest levels. While these are still important issues, we believe that,
consistent with the emphasis on ecological and social sustainability,
national forest planning should emphasize the development of desired
long-term landscape conditions and outcomes that will provide this
sustainability. We believe that establishing these long-term goals is
the most constructive place to start in the collaborative planning of
the future 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 plans should also build a pathway from the current state to
the desired future state that includes an estimate of actions and
budgets that will be needed.

[Focus small landscape planning on the mix of activities and projects
needed to meet the goals in the strategic plan\--to implement the
strategic plans.]{.underline} Projects should be developed in
combination, to the degree possible, with attention to cumulative
effects, and include implementation schedules, measurable performance
standards, budget plans and staffing plans. New activities can be added
to the overall plan with consideration of cumulative impacts and
consistency with the general strategic intent of the plan. This is the
planning level that is based upon Adaptive Management, meaning that it
is a continuous cycle of activity, evaluation and review, adaptation and
change.

The need to consider connected actions and cumulative effects, and to
enable the public to see the geographic context within which the actions
will occur, argues for an approach to project planning that considers a
larger geographic area than that usually covered by a single project.
These areas of interest will rarely follow national forest boundaries.
Current examples are sometimes called "site-specific" landscape plans,
and following this experience, we anticipate that small landscape plans
will cover from 10,000 to 150,000 acres. There may be individual
projects that are highly controversial and that require a longer time
for public discussion prior to reaching a decision on their outcome. In
such cases, it would be appropriate to evaluate them separately, but the
cumulative effects of the project must be analyzed with the others
before including them in the small landscape plans.

[An Overall Planning Structure]{.underline}

The following schematic represents our vision of the overall planning
process when a strategy for ecological sustainability is developed as a
decision separate from the large landscape plans.

Bioregional Bioregional guidance

assessment \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\> for ecological
sustainability

l D

l D

l V

l\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\>Large
landscape plans

l D D D D D D D D D "Strategic plans"

l D D

l D D

l D D

l D D

V V V

Watershed\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\>Small landscape
plans

(landscape) "Implementation plans"

assessment D

D

V

Actions

Information flows: \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\> or l or \^

l l

V l

Decision flows: D

D

V

where V or \> indicates the end of an arrow.

(In the interest of simplicity, some of the feed back loops on the
diagram have been omitted.)

[An Alternative Planning Structure]{.underline}

An alternative planning structure would combine the bioregional guidance
for ecological sustainability with the development of the large
landscape plans. The following schematic represents our vision of the
overall planning process when a strategy for ecological sustainability
is developed as a decision within the large landscape plans.

Bioregional

assessment

l

l

l

l\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\>Large
landscape plans

l D D D D D D D D D "Strategic plans" including the development

l D of guidance for ecological sustainability

l D D

l D D

l D D

l D D

V V V

Watershed\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\>Small landscape
plans

(landscape) "Implementation plans"

assessment D

D

V

###  Actions

Each of these planning structures has advantages and disadvantages.
Developing strategies for ecological sustainability at the bioregional
level ensures that that a coherent conservation strategy for species and
ecosystem processes is available for use as the foundation for large
landscape plans. We expect that the range of many species and ecosystems
cover the area of multiple large landscape plans. Therefore, attempting
to develop conservation strategies as part of the large landscape
planning process puts pressure on the planning teams to work together
across large landscape planning areas as they craft their plans. It will
undoubtedly require something close to simultaneous development of large
landscape plans and raises the importance of an independent
"science-consistency" check on the proposed plans.

[The Role of the "Traditional" Land and Resource Plan for a National
Forest.]{.underline}

The NFMA calls for development of an integrated land and resource plan
for each National Forest. Where does that fit here? In some cases, the
area of a large landscape plan will be identical to that covered by an
individual national forest or a cluster of national forests. In those
cases the land and resource plan called for under NFMA would be
equivalent to the large landscape plan. In many cases, though, different
areas on a national forest will be part of different large landscape
plans.

Regardless of the boundary used for planning, it is important to
integrate all planning direction into a single document at the
appropriate scale. One problem created by varying the scales and
boundaries of planning is the creation of multiple overlapping planning
direction for a single national forest unit. This is confusing not only
to the public, but also to the field personnel charged with implementing
the plan who must refer to the planning direction and resolve
differences in that direction among multiple planning documents.

Thus, individual national forest plans still have an important role in
compiling the results of large landscape plans and connecting them with
specific actions, i.e., with small landscape plans. These plans are a
logical focal point for summarizing budgets and staffing needs for
proposed activities, measuring performance, and monitoring results.
These plans provide a framework for the administration of a NF in a
context of federal agencies and jurisdictions, state and local
governments, tribes, local associations and other landowners. They are
important sources of identity for many of the participants in forest
planning.

We envision the "Forest Plan" as a "living document" holding in its
covers the current agreements and strategies affecting a particular
national forest or grassland. The boundaries of national forests may not
be appropriate as planning units, but they can be the primary
administrative unit for carrying out management of these lands.

We would predict that each of the three levels in the planning hierarchy
described above would need a NEPA document\--an EIS or EA associated
with it. We believe that, as described here, the 'Forest Plan" would not
be part of a NEPA process when it served as a vehicle for compiling the
results of a set of large landscape plans and small landscape plans.

[Integrating Budgets into Planning]{.underline}

Past forest plans developed both the goals for forest management and
also a set of actions for the decade expected to achieve these goals.
The activity set was generally developed without limiting budget needs
to current experience. Rather the plans were developed to help define
the budget that would be needed, based on conclusions reached by the
Forest Service after much analysis and public involvement. This approach
often led to disappointment during plan implementation as Congress
appropriated less money than envisioned and targeted the funds it did
allocate to a different mix of actions and outcomes than called for in
the plans.

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

The actions outlined in the small landscape plans, updated on a
yearly-basis, should be the basis for the budget requests. Budget
short-falls 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, strategic plan itself may need revision. During plan
revision, a comparison should be made between the expected and actual
budgets in the past so that future strategies are based on realistic
budget expectations.

As part of the Annual Report, there should be an analysis that outlines
how the budget for the year is affecting progress toward long-term goals
as related to the strategic plans. This is also an opportunity for
identifying areas where goals are not being met and for which attaining
them will require a broader approach than just the planning process.

We envision the relationship between large landscape plans, small
landscape plans, the national forest plans, and budgeting as follows:

Large landscape plans D D D D D D

"Strategic plans" D

D V

D National B B B B B B B \> Budgeting

D forest B

D plans \< B B B B B B B B B B

V \^

Small landscape plans B

"Implementation plans" B B B B B B B

D

D

V

Actions

Information flows: \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--\> or l or \^

l l

V l

Decision flows: D

D

V

where V or \> indicates the end of an arrow.

Budgeting (requests flow up; money flows down): B B B B

[Some Key Elements in our Proposal]{.underline}

We have listed 11 key elements of our proposal below:

[1) Designate as the responsible official a manager whose
responsibilities cover the area]{.underline} of the planning unit.
Currently, the Chief is responsible for regional plans and the Regional
Forester is responsible for national forest plans. This approach
inhibits change and adaptation in regional plans and national forest
plans. We believe that the Regional Foresters should be responsible for
bioregional plans and that the Forest Supervisors should be responsible
for large and small landscape plans and the integrated "forest plan."

[2) Emphasize ecological boundaries for assessment and planning, but
also consider their social meaning in choosing them.]{.underline} In the
past, planning boundaries were generally based on political/social
boundaries\--states, national forests, timber sale boundaries. Over the
last 20 years, it has become increasingly recognized that assessing and
planning for ecological sustainability needs to use ecological
boundaries---for example, the area used by wide-ranging or key wildlife
species, major watersheds, mountain ranges, vegetative types. Using
ecologically meaningful planning boundaries 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. This is especially true for the
bioregional assessment and guidance for ecological sustainability: the
logical species range or other ecologically meaningful area should be
used as the assessment boundary. 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 ecological sustainability\--rather different boundaries will be
needed for different species and ecosystems in the assessment. In our
discussion below, 'bioregion' refers to the area formed by the union of
all the different species' ranges and ecosystem boundaries. This is a
crucial concept in that within a "bioregion" there will be several
"boundaries" depending on the issue, species or ecological process. Some
aspects, like the atmospheric component in the Southern Appalachian
Assessment, will extend well beyond the boundaries of terrestrial
processes. Similarly, aquatic ecological systems will often link a
bioregion with its surrounding area. In this way, a bioregion will form
an integrative ecological area for purposes of organizing ecological and
social information.

Planning at the large and small landscape level should use ecological
boundaries, but these boundaries should also have social meaning. "Large
landscape plans" might be based 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, 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 plans" for implementation would cover areas
large enough to provide a context for action, and to measure cumulative
effects, and 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 NF, the Seven
Buttes area of the Deschutes NF, and the Chattooga Watershed
Conservation Plan in the Southeast.

[3) Consider the larger landscape in which the national forests are
located in order to understand the role of the national forests in
ensuring ecological sustainability and contributing to human
use.]{.underline} Past national forest planning tended to look inward at
what the forests can produce rather than outward at the larger landscape
and the special contribution that the national forests can make.
Ideally, land and resource planning integrates the broader geographic,
political, and social landscape with the potential contributions of the
national forests, rangelands, watersheds and grasslands. Maintaining the
diversity of native plant and animal communities and the productive
capacity of ecological systems usually depends, in part, upon the
activities on other public, tribal, state and private lands. Thus, the
planning process must be outward looking with the goal of understanding
the broader landscape in which the national forests and grasslands are
located. The assessment of social, cultural and economic conditions and
trends should provide a useful synthesis of current information
regarding demographic changes and migration patterns, economic patterns
and relationships, social organization, current institutional
arrangements, and relevant historical context. This assessment will
allow planners to have an independent "picture" of the social
environment, which can be refined and become more "place-based" in the
planning process.

[4) Address all federal lands and work with all affected federal
agencies in a coordinated fashion.]{.underline} Past national forest
planning tended to go its own way. We have realized that effective
assessment and planning for our federal lands requires a coordinated
approach across affected federal agencies. Federal agencies have made
great strides in improving their coordination in recent years, such as
the interagency development of the Northwest Forest Plan. Still much
work needs to be done. The Committee has repeatedly heard that state,
tribal, and private groups are becoming overwhelmed by the multitude and
complexity of federal land and resource planning processes.

Federal agencies should coordinate their planning processes, especially
where there are adjacent federal managers within a regional landscape
(Applegate sidebar).

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 (Sidebar with a check list for the public to
judge whether coordinated planning is occurring including whether
agencies jointly plan and map their activities, whether they have
synchronized their strategic planning, etc.). With the federal "shop' in
order, collaboration with state and tribal governments, groups, and the
public can become more efficient and effective.

[5) Use a issue-based approach to developing large landscape and small
landscape plans.]{.underline} In the past, the Forest Service developed
alternative management approaches largely independent of the public
issues and concerns, and then asked the public as well as other
governments and tribes "which one they preferred." We believe that
planning will be more successful if it takes a "participatory" approach
in which people, communities, tribes, businesses, interest groups and
governments are full partners engaged in defining issues and, most
importantly, in developing options that specifically address issues of
public concern.

It is important to recognize that public issues provide the agenda and
context for all parts of the planning process. The national strategic
vision, as exemplified in current statements regarding the importance of
watershed restoration, is a response to issues of national concern. The
bioregional assessments address issues of regional as well as national
concern and provide a context for underestanding local issues. The large
landscape planning process is founded on the identification and
deliberation of issues of public concern with the expectation of
creating collaborative stewardship as strategies and approaches for
addressing these issues emerge. (Huron-Manistee example)

One approach to developing an issue-based approach that should be given
serious consideration is the formation of a "public planning group"
associated with National Forests or Grasslands since this is where
integration of direction needs to occur and a stable area of with public
identity. (see sidebar on White Mtn/Green Mtn/Finger Lakes process) This
group would work with the planning team to review public issues and
comments, develop a list of public issues for the planning process to
address, identify issues which require scientific assessment, develop
short descriptions of each issue to identify additional analysis needs,
ensure the planning process addresses these issues, review proposed
decisions based upon the public issue analysis, and work with the FS
planning team to identify alternative approaches to resolving public
issues. When large landscape plans include portions of several NFs,
these groups could identify several members to work jointly with people
from other areas, thereby providing a direct linkage between issues
necessary to address at a large scale and those that affect a smaller
locality. For small landscape plans, this group could develop
sub-committees which could add additional members from the locality.

The NF should develop a process for identifying people to become part of
a public planning group, including advertising in the local and regional
media for applicants. While this group would form a core citizens group,
anyone could participate, as they wish, at any time. This group would
probably need to function as a FACA Committee and would serve the role
outlined in NFMA for "Forest Advisory Committees". From time-to-time,
this group might need technical and scientific assistance; identifying
knowledgeable people that could help them would be an important part of
the process.

The public planning group would help characterize the planning
alternatives. Alternatives are intended to identify different,
integrated approaches for achieving the goals of the national forest
system within the ecological and social context of the area.
Alternatives should reflect different future visions of the area so that
scientific and technical analysis can further public understanding of
the implications of different courses of action. Alternatives would also
be presented in tentative form on the Forest Home Page so that all
interested parties can contribute to their definition, analysis and
review.

To further facilitate communication and participation, all information
about the NF should be available on the Internet. The planning process
should include a participation strategy designed for the Internet so
that interested parties living away from the region can participate in
planning for it. Working analyses and discussion papers should be
continuously available and contributions invited. Minutes from the
public planning group discussions should also be available on the
internet. The forest should make every effort to invite public
participation from people living too far from the area to participate in
frequent meetings.

[6) Maintain the terms of the public controversy.]{.underline} The
planning process needs to be issue-based and not eliminate the
controversy in the issues. The planning process should create an open
forum for public and organizational inquiry in which issues of key
public concern are deliberated, analyzed and questions defined so that
all can actively work on developing solutions to them.

Conflict can be a source of creativity rather than division when diverse
perspectives are deliberated in open, accessible forums. Creating open
forums for discussion of important public issues is the essence of
public planning. Reaching agreement on decision criteria and evaluation
criteria has to be a key part of the discussion, before debate begins.
Having the information from the assessments will greatly facilitate the
ability of individuals to understand the implications of their ideas and
those of others.

7\) [Encourage collaboration by inviting citizens, as well as
governments and groups, to become stewards of the land.]{.underline} At
all stages and levels, the planning process needs to enable citizens as
well as other agencies and organizations to become stewards of the land,
not merely its clients and customers. Collaboration links individuals
and organizations into new relationships that can both contribute to
defining and integrating goals for the national forest system and
provide some of the capacity to carry them out. By building
collaborative relationships, the planning process can build
implementation capacity by defining problems in ways that they are
everyone's responsibility.

[8) Be efficient in achievement of multiple goals]{.underline} The
national forests should be efficient in their management in the context
of meeting their other goals. This mandate does not require the Forest
Service to manage these lands to maximize monetary return. Rather, it
requires them to maximize social returns, including both returns
transacted in markets and those that are not. It requires that planning
methodologies do two things: 1) attempt to minimize the trade-off in
achieving different goals and 2) demonstrate economical use of public
funds by attempting to provide each alternative combination of
conditions and outputs, that they consider, at least cost.

Conservationists may recoil from pursuit of "efficiency" in resource
analysis, in part, because they feel that it serves only to justify
commodity production from forests. We would argue that efficiency
analysis, broadly interpreted to address nonmarket, as well as, market
outputs, serves an important function in planning the management of
forests. Whenever multiple goals are being sought, efficiency analysis
can reduce the conflict in goals that might otherwise exist. Also, with
the increasing scrutiny that budgets for forest management will receive
in the future, it will become increasingly important that mangers can
demonstrate that they are not "wasting" resources. Efficiency analysis
enables managers to make this demonstration.

[9) In the long run, consider organizing administration (budgeting,
performance standards, monitoring) around the landscape units associated
with the large landscape plans.]{.underline}

Individual national forests have an important role to play in organizing
budgets and staffing needs for proposed activities, measuring
performance, and monitoring results. Their plans provide a framework for
integrative administration of a NF in a context of other federal
agencies and jurisdictions, state and local governments, tribes, local
associations and other landowners. Even when the national forests are
not the unit of planning, they are the administrative location for
staff, budgets and coordination necessary for developing both large and
small landscape plans, and implementing the resulting policy direction
and project activities.

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 plans in some places. Without such a
change, the potential for inconsistent, wasteful actions within the
large landscape units is high. In addition, making the large landscape
unit, drawn on ecological boundaries, as the administrative unit, should
make it easier to communicate to the goals of management to the public.
An example of such a unit that currently exists is the Lake Tahoe Basin,
which is the watershed of Lake Tahoe and which previously, was
administered by four national forests in two bioregions. An example of a
unit that needs to be established is the Applegate Watershed, which is
currently administered by two national forests and two BLM Districts
(sidebar).

10\) [Measure plan performance through the achievement of actions and
outcomes.]{.underline} Traditionally, plan performance has been measured
through attainment of output targets. We feel that measurement of plan
performance should primarily be done through 1) comparing the expected
actions from the strategic plans to actions undertaken through the small
landscape plans on an annual basis, and 2) comparing progress toward the
desired conditions every few years. Either of those measures might have
four results: 1) concluding things are fine, 2) adjusting the actions
that would be undertaken to achieve the mix assumed in the strategic
plan, 3) considering a change in the mix of treatments in the strategic
plan, or 4) considering a change in the desired future conditions.

[11) Make science-based planning a reality.]{.underline} In the first
round of forest plans under NFMA, scientists, by and large, sat on the
sidelines as managers and inter-disciplinary teams developed forest
plans. A series of lawsuits, and a growing realization of the central
role of science in planning, led the Forest Service and other federal
agencies to call for "scientifically credible conservation strategies"
for species and ecosystems. Throughout the country, in recent years, the
Forest Service has embraced the notion of planning based on science as
one of the tenets of forest management.

Science-based planning incorporates current scientific thought into the
planning process and the plans that result, with the understanding that
this knowledge is a set of working hypotheses informed by experiments,
demonstrations, argument, and reflection, and that over time these
hypotheses may be retained, revised, and discarded as needed. Scientists
will be asked to assist in a wide variety of ways under our proposal
including: creating knowledge of relevance to forest planning, working
on the integrative science of bioregional assessments and planning,
helping managers understand the application of this scientific and
technical knowledge to management problems, and helping to design
effective monitoring procedures and the experiments needed under
adaptive management. Managers will need to work with people from another
culture (science) and to treat management as an experiment.

[12) Establish independent reviews to provide an "outside check" on the
use of technical and scientific information.]{.underline} The
credibility of the planning process rests in part on the routine
application of an "outside check" on the use of technical and scientific
information. These reviews can provide independent verification of the
science-basis of plans and their implementation. They can highlight and
reward creative approaches to the challenging issues faced in the
management of the national forests. The knowledge of an evaluation at
the end of the planning process should, by its very presence, encourage
collaboration between managers, specialists and scientists as the plans
are developed.

There should be an evaluation of the use of scientific and technical
information in large landscape planning, i.e., an evaluation of the
consistency of strategic planning and plans with scientific and
technical understanding. A potential role model for this effort is the
"science consistency" check recently pioneered in the Tongass National
Forest land management plan (Everest et al., 1997)\-\--a technique that
evaluates if the information transferred from scientists to policy
makers and planners was understood and used appropriately.

Field reviews of projects should also be conducted to ascertain whether
implementation would meet the goals of the plans from a scientific and
technical viewpoint. The interagency PACFISH reviews could serve as a
model for this effort, assuming that the interagency committee was
broadened to consider all the values recognized in the plans.

Independent review is a critical element of adaptive management and
planning. In addition to the scientific and technical role for
independent review, the review should also evaluate the process itself
to identify information bottlenecks, and evaluate whether there is
adequate interdisciplinary representation, coordination of planning and
management across administrative boundaries, opportunities for
discussions with scientists, and open communication across functional
areas and with upper levels of administration. This part of the review
process should especially look to see if the planning process provided
an opportunity for the agency to develop new ideas, new approaches to
solving problems, and new relationships with other governments,
agencies, tribes, communities and the near and distant public. This part
of the review should be developed as a separate paper available for
public review and comment and should be included in the annual
performance evaluation of the NF.

**Appendix: Characteristics and Tasks of Assessments and Planning**

We have tried to summarize below the characteristics of the different
assessments and plans and the tasks they should undertake.

**Assessments**

These assessments should have the characteristics described earlier:

They address all lands within the geographic area being studied on which
they report conditions, trends, risks, and other issues of interest.

National forests and other federal agencies with responsibilities within
the bioregion help coordinate the assessment so that it covers all
federal lands and issues.

They work on joint fact-finding with collaborative groups formed by
relevant federal, state and local agencies as well as tribes, various
organizations, local associations, and citizens as they attempt to
develop a shared base of information. At their best, these assessments
should create forums in which scientists, managers, and the public can
collectively understand the assessment findings.

They are completed in a relatively short period of time\--within a year
for a bioregional assessment and within six months for a watershed
assessment.

The trust of participants and non-participants alike is enhanced when
the assessment process includes independent review as a normal part of
the process. For example, in the case of the Southern Appalachian
Assessment, a multi-stakeholder group reviewed the scientific and
technical adequacy of the Assessment. This group included professionals
from local and national non-government organizations, which greatly
contributed to the perception of independence and openness.

[Bioregional assessments]{.underline}

Bioregional assessments are driven by need to understand the current
state and trends on forests, rangelands, and watersheds, relative to
ecological and social sustainability. These assessments provide needed
inventory information on which to build a foundation for addressing the
conservation of species and ecosystems as well as other regional issues.
The Southern Appalachian Assessment is an example of an assessment
designed to inform the planning processes on five national forests so
that each of them could address issues of regional concern in context,
as well as more clearly understand their unique and important
contributions to the larger region (sidebar). The Science Assessment of
the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan (ICBEMP) attempts
to provide an assessment of species and ecosystems in the Columbia Basin
as the foundation of bioregional guidance and planning (sidebar). Thus,
bioregional assessments are directly linked to bioregional guidance and
to large landscape planning processes.

These assessments are problem-based and issue-driven scientific and
technical analyses of what is known about the lands and resources within
a large geographic area. These areas of interest often will not follow
national forest boundaries. As an example, the Deschutes National Forest
is neatly divided in half by two bioregions of interest: 1) that of the
northern spotted owl and 2) that of the interior Columbia Basin. Given
the large area often covered by bioregional assessments, they will
require the participation of other federal agencies, tribes, state and
local government, tribes, and the public.

These assessments should synthesize and develop an integrated analysis
of the best scientific and technical information about the diversity of
native plant and animal communities the productive capacity of
ecological systems in the bioregion, the social and economic context of
the region and existing institutional arrangements and their stewardship
capacity. To achieve this goal, assessments should at least:

1\) Define the focal species for use in the assessment of species
diversity in forest planning and develop procedures for estimating the
viability of focal species, threatened and endangered species, and
sensitive species. They should also apply these approaches to estimate
viability under likely management on the different ownerships in the
region.

2\) Define measures of ecosystem integrity and develop procedures for
estimating the level of ecosystem integrity in different ecosystems in
the region including the characteristic diversity of major functional
groups, productivity, soil fertility, and rates of biogeochemical
cycling. They should also apply these procedures to estimating ecosystem
integrity under likely management on the different ownerships in the
region.

3\) Suggest approaches to addressing the difficulties in ecological
sustainability discovered in the analysis.

4\) Make estimates of the range of historical variability for a number
of resources, including the range in the size and patterns of openings
in the different forest types.

5\) Develop an analysis of the demographic changes and migration trends,
economic patterns and trends, social organization, and assess the
stewardship capacity of existing institutional arrangements.

6\) The bioregional assessments should compile or develop the best
scientific and technical information on the contribution of the national
forests to the economic and social well-being in the bioregion,
identifying those uses, products, values, and services of special
significance to the region.

7\) They should also respond, to the degree possible, to technical and
scientific questions developed by the collaborative groups participating
in the assessment.

[Watershed Assessments]{.underline}

"Watershed assessment" is the common name for information development
processes for relatively small, ecologically identifiable geographic
areas. Boundaries for these assessments range from small river basins,
mountain ranges, or other landscape units that can logically connect the
bioregional assessment and large landscape plans to local conditions. In
some parts of the country, most notably the southeastern part of the US,
small scale assessment boundaries do not follow watershed boundaries and
other terms are commonly used. We have adopted the watershed name for
its easy recognition, but encourage other, regionally specific, names to
be adopted so as to provide that same sense of identification with
scale.

These assessments share many common characteristics with bioregional
assessments: federal agencies with responsibilities within the regions
use a coordinated effort to address all lands within the geographic area
being studied, on which they report conditions, trends, risks, and other
issues of interest.

As with bioregional assessments, watershed assessments need a
collaborative approach to create a mutually understood base of
information regarding a specific area, involving relevant federal, state
and local agencies as well as tribes, various organizations, local
associations, and citizens. People often think about and care about
lands and resources at the scale of watersheds. This "sense of place"
should make it easier to meaningfully engage them in watershed
assessments than can occur in bioregional assessments. A participatory
process should be used whereby communities and groups assess their
social and economic well-being using the larger regional social and
economic assessment as a base of information for comparative analysis.
When successful, these assessments will also have a collection of
stories and reflections from the people of the area in addition to
quantitative and qualitative analyses of resources and conditions.

Watershed assessments generally come after the development of a
strategic plan for a larger landscape. They address the following tasks:

1\) They interpret the implications of the goals in the strategic plan
for the area, in the context of site-specific information and analysis.

2)  They develop a "place-based" analysis that provides context for
    developing small landscape plans.

3)  They identify important ecological, social, economic and
    institutional variables to monitor during management implementation.

4)  

(More to come)

**Planning**

[Bioregional Guidance]{.underline}

These efforts develop scientifically credible conservation strategies
for species and ecosystems. These strategies are then employed as the
foundation on which large landscape and small landscape plans are built.

They develop strategies for conserving the focal species defined in the
bioregional assessment and for threatened, endangered, and sensitive
species, using the procedures for estimating species viability developed
in the bioregional assessment. They also develop strategies to conserve
ecosystem integrity, using procedures for estimating the level of
ecosystem integrity in different ecosystems in the bioregion developed
in the bioregional assessment.

The develop strategies for increasing the stewardship capacity of
current institutional arrangements, government programs, and
community-based conservation organizations in order to achieve the goals
of the national forest system.

They also provide guidance on other regional issues.

[Large and Small Landscape Plans]{.underline}

Both strategic plans and implementation plans should address all lands
within the geographic area. They should build on the plans already in
existence, reacting to issues and problems with these plans as
identified in a collaborative effort. The likely management of
non-federal lands is considered to estimate the context and likely
cumulative effects of federal land management. A coordinated plan for
all federal land would ideally be the result at both levels. These plans
should be done collaboratively in partnership with other federal
agencies, states, and local governments, tribes, and the public. In this
way, the federal land management plans are coordinated with plans or
anticipated activities that states and localities have for some or all
of the area. From the perspective of public participation, these
planning process utilize a knowledge base on which there is at best
tentative agreement among the interested parties and consider values
that are often ambiguous and conflicting. Thus, they require extended
stakeholder and expert deliberation and cannot be reduced to "routine"
decisions.

Large Landscape Plans (Strategic Plans)

Large Landscape Plans (Strategic Plans) have the following
characteristics: they provide a set of strategies to achieve
sustainability and place management of the national forests in a
regional context based on the bioregional assessments and other
information. They set resource management goals for different parts of
the national forests including criteria and indicators for measuring
accountability and effectiveness. They create a policy dialogue that
involves public as participants and employ a technical review process to
assess the use of knowledge in developing the strategic plans.
Generally, the plans should be completed within one year and updated as
issues arise or conditions demand.

We have named the strategic planning level the "large landscape plan"
because the ecological scale of the resource issues often extends beyond
the boundaries of a single national forest. Measuring the ability of
plans to conserve the species and ecosystems of interest can occur only
when the implications of plans for these species and ecosystems are
"added up". The plans must "fit together" in this aspect. If bioregional
guidance is available, that will be used to make sure these plans, in
aggregate, provide the needed protection. If the large landscape plans
are to develop the needed conservation strategies, coordination of large
landscape plans will be needed to address specific species and
ecosystems.

One of the primary purposes of having these plans involve all federal
agencies and producing a coordinated plan is to enable cooperation
across arbitrary administrative boundaries in an effort to significantly
strengthen their joint stewardship capacity. In other words, we expect
coordinated strategic plans to enable joint decision making at the
implementation level across ranger districts, across national forests or
grasslands, between national forest system lands and other federal land
managing agencies, and with regulatory agencies sharing jurisdictional
responsibility. These plans should be anticipatory and future oriented
so as to reduce the need for "after the fact" consultation. While

consultation will no doubt continue to be a part of the implementation
process at the small landscape level, we would expect that it would be
related to the specific issues posed by a specific set of conditions.

Strategic planning of large landscapes should:

1\) Set goals for different parts of the landscape expressed in terms of
the desired future landscape condition, and the uses and outputs, to
achieve ecological sustainability and contribute to economic and social
sustainability. Developing a vision of the future landscape conditions
and outcomes needed to achieve this result should be a central focus of
planning. Given the likely conditions that will occur on nonfederal land
in the future, the federal agencies need to develop a vision of the
future condition of forests, rangelands, and watersheds that will be
sought and the goods, values, uses, and services that they will provide.

2\) Compare the current condition of the landscape, derived from the
bioregional assessment and other information, to the desired condition,

3\) Develop a strategy for moving to the desired condition. Make an
estimate of the suite of actions (type, amount, budget) needed to move
the existing conditions to the desired conditions in the context of
likely unplanned disturbances, ie., propose a pathway from the current
conditions to the desired future conditions in terms of the suite of
proposed actions (type, amount, budget) and resulting conditions through
time.

4\) Estimate likely affects on species and ecosystems and
(qualitatively) on economies and communities over time. This work would
estimate the viability of focal, threatened and endangered, and
sensitive species and of the level of ecosystem integrity.

The purpose of strategic planning is to set a clear course of action for
a specified period of time. These Plans should answer the question:
"What are conditions and outcomes that we should seek on the national
forests to provide for ecological sustainability and to contribute to
economic and social sustainability, how will their accomplishment be
measured, what kinds of actions do we need to take to achieve them, and
what will it cost?

Small Landscape Plans (Implementation Plans)

Determine the mix of activities and projects needed to meet the goals in
the strategic plan\--to implement the strategic plans. A key information
component will be the watershed assessments that will facilitate the
development of management options within a participatory framework.
Projects are developed in combination, to the degree possible, with
attention to cumulative effects, and include implementation schedules,
measurable performance standards, budget plans and staffing plans. A
technical field review process helps evaluate effectiveness of the
projects in meeting the goals. Plans are developed within 6 months and
remain in effect for the duration of the activities. New activities can
be added at any time to the overall plan with consideration of
cumulative impacts and consistency with the general strategic intent of
the plan. This is the planning level that is based upon Adaptive
Management, meaning that it is a continuous cycle of activity,
evaluation and review, adaptation and change.

From the process of defining activities to meet the goals, planning
teams will be able to estimate the kinds of staff needed to accomplish
these activities, the budgets necessary to carry them out, and the kinds
of cooperative actions necessary to build sufficient implementation
capacity. Once there is a relatively clear set of proposed activities at
the field level of the organization, the planning analysis then "backs
up" through the structure of the agency, always focused on how the next
level up in the organizational hierarchy can best help achieve the
proposed activities. In this way, the resource planning process is
integrated with the management planning that includes the staff and
budget resources required to carry out the specified projects and
activities. It is difficult to estimate the budgets, resources, and
outputs that will be forthcoming at the strategic planning level. Only
in the proximate activities of a site specific implementation plan can
accurate estimates of inputs and outputs be established, clear
accountability measures applied, and links to budgets for multiple
purpose projects be clearly defined.

The need to consider connected actions and cumulative effects and to
enable the public to see the geographic context within which the actions
will occur argues for an approach to project planning that considers a
larger geographic area than that usually covered by a single project.
These areas of interest will rarely follow national forest boundaries.
Current examples are sometimes called "site-specific" landscape plans,
and following this experience, we anticipate that small landscape plans
will cover from 10,000 to 150,000 acres.

There are times when individual controversial projects or decisions may
threaten to derail a small landscape planning process; in such cases
experience suggests that they need to be "worked on some more" before
they can be incorporated into the small landscape plans. Sometimes these
issues are controversial because of their immediate effects, for example
a decision to close part of a campground because of the presence of bald
eagle nesting sites. Other times, the controversy stems from strongly
different perspectives on the issue or resource. And other times, there
are extremely important, but very site-specific issues, as in the case
of a rock sacred to several Indian tribes but also of important local
interest. In all such cases, it is reasonable to allow for highly
contextualized planning processes to emerge from the nature of the
problem. Decisions made in these cases can be added to the small
landscape plans when ready. In such cases, it would be appropriate to
evaluate them separately, but the cumulative effects of the project must
be analyzed with others before including them in the small landscape
plan.

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

Part and parcel with this discretion is the need for independent
evaluation of how well these site-specific implementation plans achieve
the strategic goals, including highlighting creative solutions and
innovative approaches. Without the independent evaluation of the
specific projects and their implementation, it is difficult to justify
flexibility at the local level. Issues of trust, the ability of local
managers to develop local actions to address strategic goals and the
success of implementation all increase as the amount of discretion
increase. Yet the key to successful implementation is to harness the
creative talents of national forest managers and interested members of
businesses, communities, tribes, state and local governments and the
public. Thus, there is a need for an evaluation of the site-specific
landscape plans and their implementation. The difficulty for
organizations to engage in self-critique argues for an independent
assessment. The recent review of implementation of PACFISH offers an
example of how an independent team can assess and improve implementation
of a strategic plan.

Performance evaluation of complex strategies depends on the ability to
"add up" the cumulative effects of multiple projects and multiple
activities at the large landscape scale. Measurement of plan performance
would be done through 1) comparing the expected actions from the
strategic plans to actions undertaken on an annual basis and 2)
comparing movement toward the desired conditions every few years. Either
of those measures might have four results: 1) concluding things are
fine, 2) adjusting the actions that would be undertaken to achieve the
mix assumed in the strategic plan, 3) considering a change in the mix of
treatments in the strategic plan, or 4) considering a change in the
desired future conditions.

**CHAPTER 4. PLANNING TO ACIEVE SUSTAINABILITY AND DEEPEN PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT**

**4B THE CHALLENGE OF SCIENCE-BASED PLANNING**

As a general principle, the COS believes that forest plans and planning
should be based upon our knowledge of the world while recognizing the
uncertainties surrounding that knowledge. One aspect of this knowledge
comes from science and scientists.

Over the last decade, the notion of "science-based" planning for natural
resource management has taken hold inside and outside of the Forest
Service. Managers seek it, interest groups call for it, and the public
expects it. For planning and plans to be credible in the 21st century,
they must reflect our latest findings and thinking about how the world
works. And a major part of that knowledge comes from science.

Many people in our hearings have called for the plans to be
"science-based". By that, we believe they mean the forest plans and
planning should incorporate and reflect the cumulative knowledge from
science about the portrayal of relationships and processes. In addition,
others have called for the use of indigenous ecological knowledge.

This section attempts to answer two questions: 1) what is
"science-based" planning?, 2) how can the scientific community help make
it work?

BACKGROUND

In the first round of forest plans under NFMA, managers and
inter-disciplinary teams sorted though the available information to
design strategies that would allow the maximum sustain yield of
commodities and amenities subject to "minimum management requirements"
for protection of species and ecosystems. Scientists, by-and-large, sat
on the sidelines. A series of lawsuits in the Pacific Northwest about
the adequacy of protection for old-growth species and salmon stocks in
these plans revealed that the strategies for these species on federal
land would not hold up to scientific scrutiny. This led the Forest
Service and other federal agencies to call for "scientifically credible
conservation strategies", first specifically for the northern spotted
owl and then for old growth species and salmon stocks in general.

Scientists, under the leadership of Jack Ward Thomas, moved immediately
from the side lines to center stage to construct scientifically credible
strategies for management of the federal forests of the northwest. These
efforts through four studies resulted in a set of alternatives for
management of these lands, along with estimates of the ecological,
economic, and social effects of these alternatives. One of these
options, with some modification, became the President's plan for
Northwest forests, and finally, the federal forests had a plan that
could withstand legal challenge.

Rumblings about the adequacy of protection of species and ecosystems in
the forest plans also occurred in the early to mid 1990s in the
southwest, south and most other regions in the country through protests,
lawsuits, and attempts for Congressional action. Many of these dustups
resulted in a call for science and scientists to help sort out the
competing arguments.

The work in the Northwest created ripples far beyond that region in
terms of the role of science in forest planning and management. In both
the interior Columbia basin and the Tongass National Forest, as an
example, the heavy involvement of scientists has continued, although now
in a slightly different form. In these efforts, scientists are heavily
involved in assessing current conditions and trends, while managers
craft conservation strategies and make initial estimates of effects.
Both are involved in identifying the issues to be analyzed and setting
up the conceptual framework for analysis. Scientists then review the
consistency of these estimates with scientific understanding and publish
a report.

Throughout the country, the Forest Service has embraced the notion of
planning based on science as one of the tenants of forest
management\--even if we do not yet have institutions and procedures for
making it a reality.

WHAT IS SCIENCE-BASED PLANNING?

Science-based planning is planning that incorporates current scientific
thought into the planning process and the plans that result. The
relevant scientific results and informed judgment of scientists are
known, critically evaluated, used, and relied upon. Issues in planning
that have a significant scientific content include whether the temporal
and spatial scales being considered are appropriate for the questions
being asked, whether all relevant information is considered, whether it
interpreted in a manner consistent with current scientific
understanding, whether the level of risk to species and ecosystems
associated with the alternatives is acknowledged, and whether the
uncertainty of our knowledge is recognized.

In the application of science to managing large landscapes, we generally
are not talking about classic application of the scientific method.
Hypothesis testing at the landscape scale though controlled experiments
is difficult. Rather, we are talking about scientific knowledge as a set
of working hypotheses which are informed by experiments, demonstrations,
argument, and reflection. Over time these hypotheses are retained,
revised, and discarded as needed. Scientists expect them to
change\--eternal truths are hard to find. Often their revision occurs at
the most inopportune time for managers

In science-based planning, the scientific community can expect to be
asked to help with at least five different tasks:

[1) Creating knowledge of relevance to forest planning:]{.underline}
Scientists are often asked to research specific problems encountered in
planning and summarizing the state of knowledge about them. Science
traditionally proceeds by breaking problems into smaller pieces and
redefining them to enable the formation and testing of hypotheses about
the way the world works. Forest planning certainly uncovers many of
these types of problems that need scientific analysis whether it be the
habitat requirements of owls, the effectiveness of fuel breaks in
stopping wildfires, or whether increasing the natural look of clearcuts
makes them more palatable to the public. Scientists also are often asked
to prepare "white papers" that summarize the state of knowledge about
different problems or issues such as the owl, fuel break, and clearcut
design problems mentioned above.

[2) Working on the "integrative science" of regional assessment and
planning.]{.underline} Many of the scientific problems of regional
assessment and strategic planning, however, address the whole rather
than the pieces. As an example, recent issues tackled by scientists
included how to assess the state of different fish stocks in the 160
million acre Columbia basin, the state of forest health in the northern
Rockies, and approaches to analyze the implications of placing roads in
roadless areas. What to measure and on what scale to provide a
scientific foundation for a conservation strategy? Answering these
questions require integration of different types of information and at
scales not usually encountered in traditional science.

[3) Help managers understand the application of this scientific and
technical knowledge to management problems]{.underline}

As new planning requirements are issued from Congress, the
Administration or the courts, scientists are often called to help
interpret them from a scientific standpoint and make sure that the
resulting instructions to the field have scientific credibility. As an
example, our proposed regulation on biological sustainability uses the
concepts of "ecosystem integrity" and "species viability" as central
concepts. Scientists will be involved in interpreting the meaning of
these concepts.

As specialists, planners, and managers proceed with strategic planning,
they have a multitude of questions about the scientific credibility of
there proposals including their conservation strategies for different
species and ecosystems. Answering these questions, as vital as they are
to the planning effort, are not the traditional domain of research
scientists.

As specialists and managers being to implement science-based strategic
plans, they want the assistance of scientists to help craft creative
ways to accomplish plan objectives. Strategic plans usually contain
default prescriptions to implement the conservation strategy without
much further analysis. As might be expected, they often don't fit field
conditions very well. Yet managers are understandably reluctant to vary
far from the standard prescription without assistance and field review
by scientists.

[4) Helping to design effectiveness monitoring procedures and the
experiments needed under adaptive management.]{.underline} Monitoring is
a key component of science-based planning. Yet, there are few standard
procedures to draw on in designing effectiveness monitoring procedures
for the millions of acres in a strategic plan. This especially holds
true with the limited funds available for such work. Selecting an
efficient, yet dependable, set of measures will require scientific
involvement.

[5) Evaluating the use of scientific thought in planning and
implementation]{.underline}. Once a strategic plan is proposed or a set
of projects are outlined, along with estimates of the effects of these
plans and projects, policy-makers, interest groups, and the public often
ask or challenge the scientific basis of these proposals. These "science
consistency checks" and field project reviews are just beginning but
could become an important new role for scientists under science-based
planning.

HOW DO WE ORGANIZE TO SUPPORT SCIENCE-BASED PLANNING?

[Recommendations]{.underline}

For science-based planning and management to succeed on the National
Forests, we make three major recommendations:

1\) [Forest Service Research must shoulder major responsibilities
for]{.underline}

[science-based planning.]{.underline} Forest Service Research must
provide the day-to-day delivery of results, evaluation, and advice
needed to address the seven tasks listed above. While this effort may be
assisted by scientists in other federal agencies and outside the federal
government, Forest Service Research must form its core. This effort will
call for an expanded mission for this branch of the Forest Service and
will require allocating significant portion of the energies of this
organization to supporting national forest planning and management.

The Forest Service is blessed with its own research organizations\--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. While making science-based planning work will
require efforts both inside and outside the federal government, we have
reached one inescapable conclusion about the key to its success:
science-based planning can succeed only if there is a strong, deep, and
sustained commitment to it from Forest Service Research.

Of the suite of tasks mentioned above, only the first one has been the
traditional domain of Forest Service Research on a regular basis.
Requests for help on the other six have been very occasional and are
seen as a "special assignment"\-\-- an extraordinary activity not
related to the "real work" of the research unit. All this must change if
science-based planning is to have a reasonable chance of success.

2\) [Institutions and procedures need to be established to evaluate, on
a regular basis, the use of scientific thought in planning and
implementation.]{.underline} These reviews are both to provide
independent verification of the science-basis of plans and their
implementation, and to highlight and reward creative approaches to the
challenging issues faced in the management of the national forests. The
knowledge of an evaluation at the end of the planning process should, by
its very presence, encourage collaboration between managers, specialists
and scientists as the plans are developed.

There should be an evaluation of the use of scientific and technical
information in strategic planning, i.e., an evaluation of the
consistency of strategic planning and plans with scientific and
technical understanding. A potential role model for this effort is the
"science consistency" check, recently pioneered in the Tongass National
Forest land management plan (Everest et al., 1997)\-\--a technique for
evaluating if the information transferred from scientists to policy
makers and planners was understood by them. The science consistency
check can be used to achieve consistency through iterative application
that involve successive improvements in how the scientists state their
finding and how the framers of management policy interpret the
implications of those findings. In the case of the Tongass National
forest planning effort, the science consistency check was itself
subjected to scientific peer review. Because a finding or lack of
consistency can be a point of appeal or legal challenge; a thoughtful,
thorough check can help sidestep that problem. Questions that would be
asked include: Are the temporal and spatial scales being considered
useful for the resource conservation issues being addressed? Was all
relevant information considered? Was this information interpreted in a
manner consistent with current scientific understanding? Has the level
of risk to species and ecosystems associated with the alternatives been
acknowledged and reported? Has the uncertainty of our knowledge been
recognized?

Field reviews of projects should also be conducted. These reviews should
address two basic questions: 1) whether the proposed actions were a
credible attempt to meet the goals of the plans from a scientific and
technical viewpoint and 2) whether the actions taken in the field were
consistent with what was proposed. The interagency PACFISH reviews could
serve as a model for this effort , assuming that the interagency
committee was broadened to consider all the values recognized in the
plans.

[3) The Chief of the Forest Service should establish a science and
technology advisory board with a primary goal of helping science-based
planning become a reality on the national forests.]{.underline} This
board would provide highly qualified and independent advice to the
Forest Service to assure that the most current and complete scientific
and technical knowledge is used as the basis of land and resource
management. The Board would help the Forest Service effectively
accomplish the suite of tasks, such as those listed above, important to
successful implementation of science-based planning. They would be
especially useful in advising the Forest Service on how to accomplish
the many tasks that will require new directions and energies from the
Forest Service Research and the scientific committee in general.

The Board's members would include scientists and other specialists from
a broad range of disciplines \-- biology, ecology, economics, sociology,
and other fields. The members should come from a wide variety of
organizations doing scientific work including academia, industry,
independent laboratories, and native communities. There will be a
variety of backgrounds represented in the diverse and well-qualified
group to help ensure a broad range of outside perspectives. The
membership shall consist of an interdisciplinary group of nationally
known scientists and planning experts from outside the National Forest
System. The variety of scientific and technical specialties on the
Committee should span the range of resources, issues, values, and
geographic regions encountered in national forest management.

In addition to members, the activities of the Board may be enhanced by
consultants invited by a committee chair to serve on an \"as needed\"
basis on various issues where their expertise is relevant. The number of
consultants is flexible and their one-year term can be extended
indefinitely. Consultants would be expected to meet the same standards
of technical expertise as the members.

The 20 year history of the Science Advisory Board of the Environmental
Protection Agency could serve as a role model for some elements of the
Forest Service Board. Because the requests for projects now exceed the
number that the Boards can address, the EPA SAB has adopted the
following criteria for prioritizing requests:

\* Impact overall environmental protection

\* Address novel scientific problems or principles

\* Integrate science into Agency actions in new ways

\* Influence long-term technology development

\* Deal with problems that transcend organizational boundaries

\* Strengthen the Agency\'s overall capabilities

> \* Serve leadership interests

\* Deal with controversial issues

These criteria may useful for the Forest Service to consider in
establishing this Board.

Side bar on Advisory Boards

The Scientific Roundtable on Biodiversity convened by the Chequamegon
and Nicolet National Forest serves as an example of how advisory boards
have advised Forest Service in their land management. In this case, two
advisory boards, convened in 1992, were made of teams of scientists and
sociologists who subsequently provided reports that have influenced land
management on these two national forests in Wisconsin. One group focused
on scientific issues, particularly on biodiversity, and the second
focused on socioeconomic aspects of managing the forest.

The Scientific Roundtable assessed particular risks, involving diversity
in northern Wisconsin. Each risk was ranked according to its severity,
possible responsiveness to changes in management, and uncertainty. The
Roundtable concluded that many biodiversity concerns were best
approached on a regional or landscape scale.

The Roundtable developed 23 sets of management recommendations,
emphasizing how particular risks could be mitigated or eliminated and
discussed how uncertainties might be resolved via future research. The
Roundtable also recommended that further research monitoring is needed
to more accurately detect threats to diversity and to assess how
threatened elements respond to changes in resource management.

The Roundtable was successful in terms of bringing science to bear on
the complex and difficult issues surrounding biodiversity. The research
and management recommendations are now being used to influence
management processes on these two national forests in Wisconsin.

**4D. MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT**

**Monitoring**

Monitoring is the measurement of environmental characteristics over an
extended period of time to determine status or trends in some aspect of
environmental integrity. The challenge is to decide what characteristics
of the environment to measure, to determine what their values indicate
about environmental integrity, and to use that information to make
better management decisions. The Forest Service recognizes three types
of monitoring: (1) implementation \-- have the management standards and
guidelines been employed; (2) effectiveness \-- are the standards and
guidelines producing the desired outcomes; and (3) validation -- are the
basic assumptions about cause and effect relationships use to predict
the management response valid. Our discussion here focuses primarily on
effectiveness monitoring, though it has a very close relationship to
validation monitoring.

We broadly define environmental attributes to include any biotic or
abiotic features of the environment that can be measured. The convention
has been to refer to the measured attributes as 'indicator variables'
under the assumption that their values are indicative of the integrity
of the larger ecosystem to which they belong. We adopt this definition,
and extend it to include the concept of focal species. These are species
who fulfill the indicator criterion, but in addition provide specific
insights to the biological diversity of the system.

Monitoring can occur at a variety of spatial scales, and is justified
for a variety of purposes. For example, monitoring is an essential
component of the adaptive management process. Particularly relevant to
the Forest Service planning process, however, is the value of monitoring
as a tool to assess attainment of the sustainability goal. In a sense, a
plan is a hypothesis about how we expect the ecosystem to respond to
planned management actions. The only way we can determine the truth of
this hypothesis is to observed and measure the system. A lack of
concordance between expectation and observation could lead to a revision
of the plan, and changes in management standards and guidelines. Thus
monitoring is much more than just measurement \-- it must include
analysis and assessment.

Because it is impossible to monitor and manage every aspect of
ecological sustainability, shortcuts to monitoring are needed. Elsewhere
in this report we discuss the value of focal species as surrogate
measures to the integrity of the larger ecosystem and to biological
diversity in general. In addition, it is also prudent to measure
attributes that act as early warning signals to loss of biological
sustainability before unacceptable loss has occurred. One way to narrow
the list of candidate indicators is to first list those factors \--
human-induced or natural stressors \-- that may compromise the
sustainability goal. Given this list of stressors, one selects to
measure those aspects of the environment that are most indicative of
stressor action. This form of monitoring is both anticipatory, and
provides insights into cause and effect relationships between stressors
and expected ecosystem responses.

In the following, we summarize the key components of an effective
monitoring program for those lands dependent upon Forest Service
stewardship.

1 Specifiy the goals of ecological sustainability in measurable terms.

2 Characterize the threats and stressors that may compromise ecological
sustainability.

3 Develop conceptual models that outline the pathways from stressor
action to ecological effects.

4 Select the indicators of sustainability responsive to anticipated
stressors.

5 Determine the necessary detection limits for the indicator variables.

6 Establsih critical values (or distributions) for the indicator
variables that will trigger management intervention to prevent a loss of
sustainability.

7 Establish how the monitoring results will feedback to the management
decision making process.

**Adaptive Management**

Most public land management agencies assert they are managing the
nation's resources according to an adaptive management paradigm. In
general, this suggests a structured process of reducing uncertainty
about environmental responses to management by viewing management
actions as experiments. The term 'experiment' is important here as it
suggests a kind of scientific rigor based on explicit principles of
experimental design. It is our opinion that this rigor is, in fact,
absent from most management practices, and these actions are incorrectly
portrayed as 'adaptive management'. This requires a clarification of
various ways of 'learning by doing'.

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 haphazardly, and
subsequent choices are based on the subset that was successful; (2)
'passive adaptive' management in which existing data are thoroughly
reviewed prior to each management decision, and the decision selected is
based on the current, best understanding of how 'nature 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. A decision (selection of an alternative) is made
based on an analysis of expected short-term gains versus the long-term
benefits of learning which model of how nature works is most correct.
That is, there is some long-term utility in reducing the uncertainty
that accompanies our management decisions. What distinguishes these
modes of learning is that in adaptive management a major effort is made
to synthesize existing information into dynamic models that make
predictions about the impacts of alternative management practices. No
such synthesis or model construction occurs in trial and error learning.

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 environment responded as envisioned. A lack of
concordance between observation and expectation would lead to a revised
model of how the ecosystem functions and is likely to response to
management action. For the foreseeable future, we will be uncertain
about the short and long-term environmental consequences of our
management decisions. Thus, the manager is responsible for conducting
management so as to incrementally reduce this uncertainty. These methods
of acquiring knowledge are all assumed responsive to the public trust
because uncertainty about the ecosystem is reduced by the results of the
management experiment. However, the rate at which uncertainty is reduced
is greatest for the active adaptive management paradigm, and least for
trial and error learning.

Active adaptive management is difficult, time-consuming, and often
expensive. The challenge of managing adaptively arises from the
requirements of experimentation including:

\(1\) replication and randomization of management treatments, and the
need for control areas; (2) the formulation of competing models (or
hypotheses) of how the system will respond to management; (3) an initial
assessment of belief in the 'truth' of the different models (model
likelihoods); (4) a statement of each hypotheses (model) in terms of
measurable variables; (4) monitoring the results of the 'experiment' to
determine which model is most parsimonious with the results; (5)
updating model likelihoods based on the results of the experiment. The
next round of management decisions is then based on the results of the
previous experiment, with greater weight given to the model best
supported by the existing data. The process is iterative, continuing
until uncertainty about system response has been reduced to an
acceptable level.

Given the stringent requirements for adaptive management, it is clear
that few management actions will be correctly characterized as adaptive.
Also, requiring all management actions to be cast in the context of
adaptive is unrealistic. This begs the questions, "when do the benefits
of adaptive management outweigh its costs", and "when should it be
chosen as the appropriate paradigm for management?" We suggest that the
following guideline: the adaptive management paradigm should be adopted
when the environmental consequences of the action are highly uncertain,
and to the degree the management action may result in irreversible loss.
When these conditions are met, then an adaptive management design should
be adopted. This linkage between science and management presents an
obvious opportunity for collaboration between the management and
research branches of the Forest Service.

**CHAPTER 5. EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON FOREST SERVICE PLANNING**

**5A. The BUDGET PROCESS**

In this section, we address three issues that are sometimes seen as
being beyond land and resource planning and yet have the potential to
undercut its effectiveness. These are: 1) the budgeting process, 2) the
appeals process, and 3) requirements of other laws and regulations.

1\. The Budget Process and Planning

a\) Independence of the planning and budgeting processes:

For planning to be meaningful it needs to bear a relationship to the
current and likely future situation. To achieve this there must be some
relationship between the plan and the budget available to undertake the
plan. One of the issues raised regularly as a major weakness of the
current process is that of the failure of plans to be implemented. Much
of this problem is related to the weak link between the planning process
and the budget. A common complaint that the COS heard in its hearings
across the country is that the plan is often (commonly) not accompanied
with a budget that comports with the plan. Thus, the budget available
does not provide sufficient funding to allow for the plan to be
implemented as developed.

The lack of correspondence between the budget and the plan are of two
types. First, the total budget provided by the Congress is typically
less than that required for the planning. Second, the Congressional
budget is allocated by \"programs\" and bears little relationship to the
configuration of the individual forest plans. Thus, for example, the
budget passed by the Congress may allow funding of 110 percent of the
total timber called for in the plan, but only 30 percent of the planned
recreation.

Although some have argued that budgeting is an internal problem that the
FS is able to circumvent, it appears to be driven more by Congressional
prerogatives then agency decisions. While the FS has some discretion in
developing the initial budget request and in reallocating funds among
budget categories after Congressional action, the ability to fund the
plans as approved is typically beyond the control of the FS.

This problem was exacerbated in the first round of plans where little
consideration often was given to fiscal reality . Those plans developed
both the goals for forest management and also a set of actions for the
plan decade to achieve these goals. The activity set was generally
developed generally without limiting budget needs to current experience.
Rather the plans were developed to help define the budget that would be
needed, based on conclusions reached by the Forest Service after much
analysis and public involvement.

The current budgeting process is approximately as follows: a) The Forest
Supervisors estimate the budget required to carry out the Forest Plan on
an annual basis; b) These budgets are totaled by the FS and submitted to
the Department of Agriculture; c) The Department of Agriculture provides
a budget ceiling, typically less than requested by the FS; d) This
budget goes to OMB and is negotiated, with the FS included in the
negotiations; e) the Administration proposed budget is presented to the
Congress; finally, f) Congress then produces a budget based on its
priorities that is signed by the President.

The operation of the budgeting process as described above is largely
independent of the planning process and the plans, except that Congress
generally accepts upper limits on commodity outputs, such as the
allowable sale levels, defined in the plans. Furthermore, since the
final allocations in the Congressional budget are on the basis of
programs, not plans, the budgeted items typically are poorly related to
the various plan items. Finally, the total budget appropriated by the
Congress is typically less than what is required to financial the forest
plans.

This disconnect leads to a number of unfortunate results. First, the
Forest Service has to patch together the different functional budget
provisions to undertake the integrated management increasingly mandated
by the plans and courts. Second, the unequal budgeting for different
resources and outputs means that the plan goals are unequally met.
Finally, it undermines public confidence in the forest planning process
as people find that the hard earned compromises fought out in the forest
plans cannot be implemented fully.

b\) Approaches for improving the relationship between land and resource
planning and budgets

In concept, the RPA and NFMA envisioned the Congress drawing-up FS
budgets with reference to widely accepted forest plans. If Congress were
to be attentive to the plans and their components, Congressional budgets
would be informed by the plans and, presumably, funding would reflect
the size and priorities of the plan.

Some have argued that alternative budgeting approaches are likely to be
more efficient. For example, the National Park Service receives
Congressional funding by individual park. Such an approach has been
suggested for the Forest Service, and in fact, the Quincy Library
legislation provides for separate funding for a part of the National
Forest. If the Congress were to provide the total Forest Service budget
using a line item forest-by-forest funding approach, the chances of a
closer correspondence between the forest plan and the budget might be
enhanced.

Within the current budgeting process, however, some changes could be
undertaken to improve the correspondence between the budget and the
Plan. This approach recognizes that for the Plan to have any
creditability there must be some reasonable expectation that it can be
implemented. In general, these adjustments would recognize that the
planning needs to adhere to the likely the budget rather than assuming
that the budget will adhere to the plan. At the same time, these
suggestions should allow for the role of planning to describe the
possibilities that might be achieve with sufficient budgets.

The central role of budgets: affecting the rate of achievement of the
desired future condition

In general, as discussed in the section on planning processes, strategic
plans should focus on long-term goals for management of the national
forests and different areas within them, leaving the details of
achievement of these goals to the tactical year-to-year implementation
plans. In this model, strategic plans focus on setting the goals for
different areas of the forest, the priority for these goals, and the
desired future condition associated with these goals. The plans would
also estimate of the pathway (mix of actions over time) to achieve these
goals with the magnitude of the effort keyed to expected budgets.

It would be useful for the strategic plans to outline progress toward
achieving long-term goals and the associated desired future conditions
under a number of budget levels, in addition to expected budgets, and
how these increased or decreased budgets would affect progress. As an
example, it could be that needed hazard reduction would take a long time
under current budgets and be sped up considerably under a higher budget
level. This information will be useful in formulating budget requests
and in altering the public as to the implications of different budget
levels.

In each year, implementation analysis of the actions needed to move
toward the long-term goals would provide the basis of the budget
request. Resulting budgets would determine the mix of actions actually
used to more toward the goals and how rapidly progress would be made.

Under this scheme, year-to-year budget variations would not necessitate
change in the long-term goals of the plan or in the choice of the
\"desired future condition\" of the forest. However, reduced budgets
would likely change the time profile associated with achieving a desired
future condition and so affect the time profile of the outcomes
associated with meeting the future desired condition goals.

It would be useful to all those interested in management of the national
forests to understand how the annual budget level and distribution among
programs is affecting progress toward long-term goals. Information in
the differential funding among different resources and outputs would be
of special value, along with the overall level of budget. Therefore, an
annual report should be published that outlines how the budget for the
year is affecting progress toward long-term goals. Also, as plans are
revised, they should compare actual budgets for the plan period to those
that were expected.

The role of budgeting in setting the desired future condition itself

Budgets need consideration in setting the desired future condition\--the
long-term goals for management of the national forests\--in at least two
ways. First, it would be important to understand whether the budgets
required to maintain the desired future condition, once achieved, are at
all reasonable. As an example, some strategies for maintaining forest
structures in fire-prone landscapes rely on prescribed fire every few
years. It may be that the total budgets for these activities add up to a
budget much higher that foreseen as likely. While it is improbable that
the desired future condition would stay constant over the time needed to
achieve it, an evaluation of the realism of the budget needs to maintain
this condition would be instructive. If these budget levels seemed out
of line with likely budgets in the long-term, forest planning would
evaluate other desired future conditions more compatible with likely
budgets.

Second, the long-term goals may need adjustment if it becomes clear that
Congress is unlikely to fund accomplishment of the management goals.
While we would not want the strategic plan to react to each years budget
level and distribution, five or 10 years of budgets that systematically
do not fund achievement of some goals in the strategic plan send a
signal. As an example, if Congress does not fund monitoring
year-after-year, then strategic plans need to be adjusted to reflect
these realities, which may include limiting activities whose performance
is dependent on monitoring their effects.

The importance of self-funding activities

Strategic planning and implementation planning should consider
activities to accomplish their goals that at least partially pay for
themselves. While these activities, such as timber harvest, may not turn
out to be appropriate, it must be acknowledged that activities that can
pay for themselves are often more likely to occur than those that do
not.

Summary: Recommendations for improving the relationship between land and
resource planning and budgeting

a\) The strategic plan should concentrate on setting the long-term goals
and the associated desired future condition and make a first estimate of
the pathway (mix of actions) over time to achieve these conditions. The
estimated rate of accomplishment of the 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.

b\) As part of strategic planning, the budget needs of maintaining the
desired future condition should be examined; if they appear unrealistic,
less budget-intensive desired future conditions should be considered.

c\) Implementation plans, updated on a yearly-basis, should be the basis
for the budget requests.

d\) Budget short-falls will affect implementation plans and rate of
progress toward goals; they do not automatically trigger a revision in
the strategic plan

e\) If it becomes clear over time that Congress is unlikely to fund
accomplishment of the management goals, then the strategic plan itself
may need revision. During plan revision, a comparison should be made
between the expected and actual budget during the plan period.

f\) An annual report should be published that outlines how the budget
for the year is affecting progress toward long-term goals.

g\) Both strategic planning and implementation planning should consider
activities that have the potential to pay for themselves, in addition to
activities that rely solely on appropriated funds.

h\) The national forests should continue experiments to fund entire
programs for individual national forests and should report on the
experience with this approach so far.

**5B. REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS**

Numerous observers, including the GAO, a former Chief and others, have
maintained that the overlapping of various environmental laws, e.g., the
NEPA, ESA, NFMA, CWA , etc. generates substantial difficulties. The best
laid plans for the National Forests may be knocked over by these other
laws under the current approach, causing despair and disdain inside and
outside the Forest Service. Given Congress's apparent reluctance to
"harmonize" the environmental laws though legislation, it appears that
administrative reform is the best route to overcoming these problems.
Toward that end, we have made a number of suggestions throughout this
report:

1\) that land and resource planning be undertaken by an interagency team
including representatives from agencies responsible for implementing
these other laws.

2\) that project review of implementation of these plans be done by a
similar interagency team.

3\) that a coordinated strategic plan be developed across federal
ownerships within a region.

4\) that the planning processes associated with the other laws,
including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, be
examined and integrated with the planning process mandated under NFMA.

We realize that the regulatory agencies, especially FWS, NMFS, and EPA,
are part of the check and balance system for land management agencies to
ensure that these agencies do not neglect legal mandates for protection
of species and ecosystems. While we fully expect continuation of that
role by these agencies, we feel that the changes suggested here will
reduce administrative surprise and get the concerns of other agencies
addressed early in the process as opposed to after the land and resource
plans are completed.

**36 Code of Federal Regulations § 219.1**

**Purpose, Goals, and Principles**

\(a\) Purpose. The National Forest System constitutes an extraordinary
national legacy created by people of vision and preserved for future
generations by diligent and far-sighted public servants and citizens.
They are the people's lands, emblems of our democratic traditions.

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

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

The objective of planning for the National Forest System is to guide
stewardship so as to fulfill the purposes of the national forests and
grasslands and to honor their unique place in American life. The
regulations in this subpart set forth a process for developing,
adopting, implementing, and revising land and resource management plans
for the National Forest System as required by the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (hereafter, "NFMA"), the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Act of 1974, the Organic Act of 1897, the
Multiple-Use, Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the Endangered Species Act of
1973, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and other applicable statutes.

\(b\) Major Goals and Principles. Forest planning shall strive to
achieve the following major goals and embody the following principles:

**Goal One. PLANNING STRIVES TO ASSURE THE ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OF OUR WATERSHEDS, FORESTS, AND RANGELANDS.**

The guiding star for planning is sustainability. Like other overreaching
national objectives, sustainability is broadly aspirational and can be
difficult to define in concrete terms. Yet, especially considering the
increased human pressures on the national forests, it becomes ever more
essential that planners focus on the moral imperative that lies at the
heart of the idea of sustainability, that our use today does not impair
the functioning of ecological processes and the ability of these natural
resources to contribute economically and socially in the future.

While one function of sustainability is to chart a broad and idealistic
objective, important aspects of sustainability can also be defined and
measured with some precision in the planning process. First, species
viability, which is essential to biological diversity, is a powerful
metric. Second, useful measurements can be made of ecosystem
productivity through such indicators as fire and flow regimes, water
purity, tree and grass growth, air quality, and wildlife population
growth. By seeking to sustain biological diversity and ecosystem
productivity --- by emphasizing what we leave, rather than what we take
--- forest planning can play a crucial role in laying the necessary
foundation for the economic and social components of sustainability:
making contributions to strong, productive economies and creating
opportunities for enduring human communities.

Principles

\(a\) [Planning first provides for the diversity of native plant and
animal communities and the productive capacity of ecological
systems\--the core elements of ecological sustainability]{.underline}.
All aspects of sustainability depend upon biological diversity and
ecosystem productivity, which make possible the economic and social
benefits that national forests and grasslands can provide. Biological
diversity, in turn, depends on species viability: diversity is sustained
only when species persist. Ecological productivity depends both on
species viability and the maintenance of characteristic ecosystem
functions and processes in the face of human and natural disturbance.
The obligation of planners and managers to provide for species viability
and ecosystem integrity is at the center --- scientifically,
economically, socially, and morally --- of stewardship of the national
forests and grasslands.

\(b\) [Planning , in order to achieve economic and social
sustainability, uses methods and processes that enable the continued
contribution of the national forests to communities, economies, and the
society-at-large]{.underline}. Planning should illuminate and consider
how to maintain, in the long run, a broad range of uses, values,
products, and services of a national forest of importance to economies,
communities and society at large.

\(c\) [Planning must be based upon science and other knowledge of the
natural world. The best available ecological, economic, and social
information and analysis must be the foundation of land and resource
planning]{.underline}. Planning should consider information from sources
such as Native people and other knowledgeable residents.

d\) [Planning develops and uses an early warning system for determining
the scientific credibility of management proposals to provide for
ecological sustainability]{.underline}. Many plans in the past has been
derailed because they were based on conservation strategies that wilted
under scientific scrutiny, often with a disruptive effect on economies
and communities. In the future, planning should build in independent
review by Forest Service and other scientists of proposed conservation
strategies for species and ecosystems before publication of plans.

\(e\) [Plans include mechanisms for evaluating whether stewardship goals
have been achieved. Because one of the core functions of planning is to
foster informed management decisions through ongoing assessment and
evaluation, effective monitoring is a crucial aspect of planning and
management]{.underline}. Additionally, independent field review by
Forest Service and outside technical and scientific experts plays an
important role in monitoring. When appropriate, the results of
monitoring and these independent reviews should be incorporated into the
plan through amendments.

**Goal Two. AS PART OF THE OVERALL GOAL OF SUSTAINABILITY, PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT PROVIDES A WIDE VARIETY OF USES, VALUES, PRODUCTS, SERVICES,
AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS.**

The national forests have been a grand experiment in providing for the
multiple uses --- outdoor recreation, range, timber, wildlife and fish,
water use, and mining --- of these lands on a permanent basis, following
Gifford Pinchot's dictates that the lands be devoted to "their most
productive use for the permanent good of the whole people . . . always
bearing in mind that the conservative use of these resources in no way
conflicts with their permanent value." They should be a shining example
for the entire world of stewardship that provides a wide variety of
uses, values, products, and services in ways that are compatible with
long-term sustainability.

Principles

\(a\) [Planning searches for strategies and actions that provide for
uses, values, products, and services while at the same time contributing
to long-term sustainability]{.underline}. The national forests should
direct much of their planning and implementation energies toward
developing, applying, documenting, and rewarding strategies and actions
that enable the multiple uses to occur in ways that promote long-term
sustainability. Strategies and actions that knowingly place species and
ecosystems at risk for short-term economic and social benefits will not
be pursued.

\(b\) [Planning searches for strategies that produce revenue from these
uses, values, products, and services]{.underline}. While it is probably
not possible for the national forests to be self-financing, it is
important that they produce revenue from human use where that can be
done without diminishing long-term sustainability.

\(c\) [Planning recognizes the interdependence of healthy forests,
rangelands, and watersheds with healthy communities]{.underline}. Many
communities depend on the national forests for much of their economic,
social, and cultural sustenance. Planning takes generous account of
compelling local circumstances. This includes the needs of ranching,
farming, timber, and tourism communities, and Indian reservations.
Further, many Hispanic communities in the Southwest depend on the former
Spanish and Mexican land grants, which remain critical to them for
watershed protection, livestock grazing, subsistence hunting and
fishing, firewood gathering, and other purposes.

\(d\) [Planning recognizes the rights of American Indian
Tribes]{.underline}. Indian tribes possess unique and important rights
recognized by federal treaties, statutes, and executive orders. These
Indian laws are not included in "The Principal Laws Relating to Forest
Service Activities," but, when applicable, they are every bit as binding
on the Forest Service as the ones listed in that compilation. The agency
has a general trust responsibility to federally-recognized tribes and a
duty to acknowledge them as sovereign governments and to deal with them
on a government-to-government basis. Depending on the circumstances of
particular tribes and national forests, such lands also may provide for
tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights, access to sacred sites,
protection of graves and other archaeological sites, and watershed
protection for downstream Indian reservations, and fishing sites.
Stewardship of the national forests must, as is the case with the many
other federal laws that apply to the national forests, give full respect
to applicable Indian laws and comply with them.

**Goal Three. PLANNING RECOGNIZES, AND IS INTEGRATED INTO, THE BROADER
GEOGRAPHIC, LEGAL, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL LANDSCAPE WITHIN WHICH NATIONAL
FORESTS EXIST.**

In every sector of the country, the Forest Service and the national
forests are just one important agency and one important land system
among many important governmental and private entities and land
ownerships. Some of these agencies have statutory authority over the
national forests. Other agencies, governments, corporations, and
citizens manage land in and around the national forests. Still others
have a keen interest in the national forests and can affect the way the
political process views Forest Service action. Sustainability of
watersheds and other natural areas in which national forests are located
will inevitably depend upon activities on other federal lands, tribal,
and state lands, and private lands and on the actions and attitudes of a
wide variety of agencies, governments and citizens. Also, the different
landowners will vary in their ability and interest in providing the mix
of uses, products, values, services, that people seek from forests and
rangelands. Planning, therefore, must be outward-looking with the goal
of understanding the broader landscape in which the national forests sit
and the highest values for management of these forests in the context of
how people, businesses, and governments will conserve, regulate, and use
the lands within and around the national forests.

Principles

\(a\) [National forest planning is only one of the processes and
procedures for planning the management of the national
forests]{.underline}. The days of the Forest Service planning the future
management of the national forests on its own are over. The Forest
Service shares planning for these lands with other federal agencies
(especially those agencies responsible for implementing the Endangered
Species Act and the Clean Water Act), other governments, Congress, and
Indian tribes and with the broader citizenry that wishes to participate
from the beginning. While there is only so much that the planning
regulations for a single agency can do to address this situation, the
ability to structure the planning process under NFMA to accommodate it
will have much to say about the ultimate success of national forest
planning in the 21st century.

\(b\) [Effective assessments and planning of our federal lands requires
a coordinated approach by all affected federal agencies]{.underline}.
Getting all federal agencies with statutory authority over the national
forests to the table from the beginning is essential, especially those
charged with implementing ESA and CWA.. Obtaining participation, and
joint planning, of all federal land management agencies in the area is
another key to successful planning. While these regulations cannot
require participation and joint planning with other federal agencies,
they should accommodate and encourage it.

\(c\) [Planning proceeds from start to finish in close cooperation with
state, tribal and local governments]{.underline}. Success in achieving
goals for the national forests and grasslands may depend upon decisions
made by other jurisdictions; similarly, the Forest Service often can
help other jurisdictions achieve their objectives.

\(d\) [Planning is interdisciplinary]{.underline}. Planning must respond
to a broad range of scientific, economic, and social concerns.
Therefore, planning teams must represent diverse disciplines and work
together collectively and collegially to develop information and
alternatives. Consultations can be employed to tap other relevant
sources of knowledge.

\(e\) [Planning must be based on the spatial and temporal scales
necessary to assure sustainability and provide for multiple
use]{.underline}. The boundaries of the national forests and grasslands
seldom provide the best units for resource planning. Instead, experience
has shown that information gathered in resource assessments, at a broad
regional scale, with the definition of a "region" occasionally shifting
with the issues, and at the watershed level should guide planning. The
plans should usually be based on information developed at both large
landscape and small landscape scales --- respectively larger and smaller
than national forests. In order to achieve long-term sustainability,
planning must take account of cumulative resource impacts well beyond
the life of a plan.

\(f\) [Planning acknowledges the limits and variability of likely
budgets]{.underline}. Plans that are unrealistic in budget terms can
seldom be implemented, and hence fail to provide proper management
guidance, lead to public frustration and anger, and undermine
high-quality stewardship. Plans should be resilient in the face of
erratic budgets.

**Goal Four. PLANNING MEANINGFULLY ENGAGES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE
STEWARDSHIP OF THEIR NATIONAL FORESTS**.

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

Principles

\(a\) [Planning encourages extensive collaborative citizen
participation]{.underline}. There are many institutions, groups, and
individuals in American society who care so deeply about the national
forests that they are willing to devote their own time, energy, and
resources to the sound and sustainable management of these forests. To
better inform, learn from, and work with these diverse interests, forest
planning must encourage broad-based, vigorous, and ongoing opportunities
for collaboration These dialogues must be open to any person at any
time, 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. Citizen
participation should be encouraged from the beginning, when the issues
that planning addresses will be defined, and continue through plan
development, implementation, monitoring, and amendment.

\(b\) [Planning builds upon the human resources in local
communities]{.underline}. Just as local communities depend on the
national forests and grasslands, so too does the health of many forests,
rangelands, and watersheds depend, in turn, on healthy communities. Many
restoration actions are needed on these lands, including programs to
improve riparian conditions, reduce fuel loads, and rebuild and retire
roads. These efforts will require entrepreneurs and a trained workforce.
The surrounding communities, assuming that they continue to exist and
prosper, can help provide these services. Planning and management must
realize the full potential of these human resources to further the
stewardship of the national forests and grasslands.

\(c\) [Planning and plans must be understandable to the American
people]{.underline}. A central purpose of planning is to speak directly
to the public. The language of planning must be clear and
straight-forward. Maps, tables, charts, diagrams, and photographs will
almost always help bring a plan to life. Planners should freely employ
technologies such as geographic information systems (GIS) displays, web
pages, and CD ROMs. These are the people's lands, and planning must be
welcoming to the public.

\(d\) [Planning strives to restore and maintain the trust of the
American people in the management of the national forests]{.underline}.
Planning, which is a principal setting in which the Forest Service
relates to the public, can be a valuable forum in which to reestablish
the public's confidence. Planners need to work on the premise that a
good plan cannot be achieved without the public's respect and trust.
Therefore, planning should integrate the public into the process, give
the public accurate and complete information in a way that can be
understood, make extensive use of public input, and meet public
expectations by adopting realistic plans and fulfilling their objectives
until amended. And perhaps most important, the Forest Service should
welcome independent field review of its plans and actions.

**Goal Five. PLANNING, WHICH MUST BE AT ONCE VISIONARY AND PRAGMATIC,
GUIDES DECISION-MAKING.**

Planning has long been viewed as a burdensome exercise with little
connection to management. In fact, planning must be an organic part of
stewardship of the national forests and grasslands: plans must be
working guides that Forest Service employees find useful and motivating.
Given the frequency with which new issues arise, new information becomes
available, and unforeseen events occur, planning should be viewed as an
ongoing process, where guidance and directions are adapted as necessary
to new understandings.

Principles

\(a\) [Planning should organize a collective vision of the future
considering the larger landscape in which the national forests
sit]{.underline}. Developing a collective vision of future landscape
conditions, and the uses, products, values, and services that will be
provided by these conditions, is our best hope for a "coming together"
of the people and groups that care about the national forests. Pictures,
maps, and computer imagery of future conditions will help people
visualize alternatives and reach agreement on a shared vision. A plan
should begin with a short mission statement that captures this vision.
The mission statement should be broad but vivid and evocative --- a
dream rooted in reality. A more elaborate and specific "desired future
condition" will serve as the central reference point for actions on the
national forests. Implementing action plans, measures of performance,
budgets, and monitoring should all be oriented toward achieving the
desired future condition and the outcomes associated with it.

\(b\) [Planning establishes goals for management of the national forests
and ways to achieve them in the context of this collective
vision]{.underline}. Forests plans provide direction for management, and
do not simply describe limitations on actions within the national
forests. As such, they need to set goals for different parts of the
landscape, measures of goal attainment, ways to achieve those goals, and
mechanisms that encourage creative site-specific approaches to achieving
the goals.

\(c\) [Planners must actively seek out and address key issues,
especially the toughest ones: Planning cannot avoid controversy by
trying to bury it]{.underline}. The best guidelines will emerge from an
open, candid, and collaborative process that tackles key issues.

(d[) Planning should be efficient in the achievement of plan
goals]{.underline}. Searching for strategies that simultaneously achieve
multiple goals and finding the least-cost method for achieving these
goals are important approaches to achieving efficient plans.

\(e\) [Planning must be at once practical and innovative]{.underline}.
Planning is not an end in itself but rather must be a useful endeavor
that furthers real-world objectives, including serving as a working
guide for stewardship. At the same time, planning must encourage
risk-taking and creativity. Valuable innovations have been developed
during Forest Service planning, ranging from successful collaborative
efforts to multi-agency watershed and large-landscape assessments.
Planners should be ever alert to new and exciting opportunities that may
arise from the unique circumstances surrounding a particular forest
plan.

\(f\) [Plans must be done expeditiously]{.underline}. Lengthy planning
efforts frustrate public participants, strain Forest Service resources,
and can result in plans that are outdated when adopted. Planners should
aim for the completion of a plan, from the assessment phase through the
formal adoption of small landscape plans, within three years and
preferably less than two. To accommodate this goal, analytical
requirements should be kept to a minimum consistent with the achieving.
In the future, when plans are regularly kept current through the
amendment process, plan revisions should be completed in an even shorter
time.

\(g\) [Plans are dynamic and adaptable]{.underline}. There is no such
thing as a "final plan." While a plan should strive to attain a
reasonable degree of predictability in its implementation, everyone also
must recognize that unpredicted events, ranging from natural
disturbances to changed market conditions, will occur. Forest Service
officials must respond adaptively to new circumstances through plan
amendments, small and large, so the plans will remain fully current.
Plans must be living documents.