Legal, Institutional, and Economic Indicators of 

Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management: 

Review of Information Available for the 

United States

Legal, Institutional, and Economic Indicators of 

Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management: 

Review of Information Available for the

United States

PAUL V. ELLEFSON, CALDER M. HIBBARD, MICHAEL A. KILGORE, AND JAMES E. GRANSKOG, EDITORS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

A Technical Document Supporting 

the USDA Forest Service 2005 Update of the RPA Assessment

A Technical Document Supporting 

the USDA Forest Service 2005 Update of the RPA Assessment

FOREST SERVICE
The Authors

Paul V. Ellefson, Professor, Calder M. Hibbard, Research Specialist, and

Michael A. Kilgore, Assistant Professor, respectively, University of

Minnesota, Department of Forest Resourcees, St. Paul, MN 55108; and

James E. Granskog, Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Southern

Research Station, New Orleans, LA 70113.

Cover photo: Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Ternnessee.

Photo credit: Chris Evans, The University of Georgia, www.forestryimages.org.

July 2005

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802

DISCLAIMER

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture of any product or service.

PESTICIDE PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENT

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply 

that the uses discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal 

agencies before they can be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife if they are not 

handled or applied properly. Use all herbicides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of 

surplus pesticides and their containers.


Legal, Institutional, and Economic Indicators

of Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management:

Review of Information Available for the United States

Paul V. Ellefson, Calder M. Hibbard,

Michael A. Kilgore, and James E. Granskog,

Editors



Contents

Page

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Review and Evaluation Process.......................................................................................................................................... 1

Major Findings and Conclusions........................................................................................................................................ 6

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Information Review and Evaluation: Legal Framework................................................................................. 9

Property Rights and Land Tenure (Indicator 48) — Calder M. Hibbard and Paul V. Ellefson ..................................... 11

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 11

Current Legal Capacity ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 18

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 20

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix—Federal Statutes with Implications for Usufructory Rights and Restrictions on Federal Land .................. 23

Forest Planning, Assessment, and Policy Review (Indicator 49) — Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard ............. 24

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 24

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 24

Current Legal Capacity ....................................................................................................................................................... 26

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 39

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 40

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 41

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Public Participation and Access to Information (Indicator 50) — Calder M. Hibbard and Paul V. Ellefson .............. 44

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 44

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 44

Current Legal Capacity ....................................................................................................................................................... 45

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 51

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 53

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 54

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Appendix—U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Requirements for Public Participation Processes

Involving Forest and Related Resources, 2001 ............................................................................................................. 57

Best-Practice Codes for Forest Management (Indicator 51) — Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard ................... 62

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 62

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 62

Current Legal Capacity ....................................................................................................................................................... 63

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 71

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 72

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 75

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 75


Page

Information Review and Evaluation: Institutional Framework................................................................... 77

Public Education and Extension (Indicator 53) — Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard ........................................ 79

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 79

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 79

Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 80

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 90

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 91

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 94

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 94

Appendix A—Private Organizations Engaged in Public Education Activities

Involving Forest Resources (2002) ................................................................................................................................ 96

Appendix B—Periodicals Conveying Information About Use, Management, and

Protection of Forest Resources (2002) .......................................................................................................................... 97

Appendix C—Federal Agency Programs Containing Educational Elements Relevant to

Forest Resources, by Agency (2001) ............................................................................................................................. 98

Forest Planning, Assessment, and Policy Review (Indicator 54) — Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard ............. 99

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 99

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 99

Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 101

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 113

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 114

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 115

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 115

Human Resource Skills (Indicator 55) — Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard ........................................................ 118

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 118

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 118

Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 119

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 130

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 131

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 133

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 133

Appendix A—Selected Colleges, Universities, and Technical Schools with Professional, Technical, or

Pre-Professional Education in Forestry or Related Natural Resources, 2001 ............................................................. 136

Appendix B—Private Organizations Providing Continuing Education Opportunities Involving

Timber and Wood-Based Commodities ........................................................................................................................ 138

Physical Infrastructure (Indicator 56) — Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard ........................................................ 139

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 139

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 139

Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 141

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 146

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 147

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 149

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 149
Page

Enforcement of Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines (Indicator 57) — Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard ........ 151

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 151

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 151

Current Institutional Capacity ............................................................................................................................................ 152

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 166

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 167

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 169

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 169

Appendix A—Presidential Executive Orders Representing Enforcement Actions Relevant to

Forest and Related Resources, 1961-2000 .................................................................................................................... 171

Appendix B: Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source

water pollution, by State, water pollution law, and requirements for forestry (2001)................................................ 172

Information Review and Evaluation: Economic Framework........................................................................ 187

Investment, Taxation, and Regulatory Environment (Indicator 58) — Michael A. Kilgore and Paul V. Ellefson ....... 189

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 189

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 189

Current Economic Capacity ............................................................................................................................................... 191

Issues and Trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 207

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 208

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 209

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 210

Appendix—Forestry Cost-Share Programs Implemented by State Governments ........................................................... 212

Forest Products Trade (Indicator 59) — C. Denise Ingram and Michael Hicks .............................................................. 213

Rationale and Interpretation ............................................................................................................................................... 213

Indicator Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................... 213

Conceptual Background...................................................................................................................................................... 213

Current Conditions.............................................................................................................................................................. 215

Relationship to Other Indicators ........................................................................................................................................ 216

Information Adequacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 217

Recommendations............................................................................................................................................................... 217

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................................... 221


Abstract

This review looks at the Nation’s legal, institutional, and economic capacity to

promote forest conservation and sustainable resource management. It focuses on

20 indicators of Criterion Seven of the so-called Montreal Process and involves an

extensive search and synthesis of information from a variety of sources.

It identifies ways to fill information gaps and improve the usefulness of several

indicators. It concludes that there is substantial information about the application

of such capacities, although that application is widely dispersed among agencies

and private interests; which in turn has led to differing interpretations of the

indicators. Individual chapters identify a need to further develop the conceptual

foundation on which many of the indicators are predicated. While many uncertainties in the type and accuracy of information are brought to light, the review

clearly indicates that legal, institutional, and economic capacities to promote

sustainability are large and widely available in both the public and private sectors.

Keywords: Criterion and indicators, economic capacity, institutional capacity,

legal capacity, Montreal Process, sustainable management


Introduction

The United Nations 1992 Conference on Environment and

Development directed worldwide attention to the importance of sustainably managing forests for the needs of

present and future generations. The Conference’s 144

participating nations acknowledged the importance of such

management by adopting a nonbinding statement of forest

management principles (Sitarz 1994). Canada, the United

Nations, and the Conference on Security and Cooperation

in Europe subsequently sponsored an International Seminar

of Experts on Sustainable Development of Boreal and

Temperate Forests (in Montreal, Canada, 1993). The

seminar provided a forum for a discussion about measuring

and tracking progress toward goals of forest sustainability,

with special reference to temperate and boreal forests. The

seminar in Montreal and subsequent related meetings

(collectively termed the Montreal Process) provided the

conceptual basis for regional and international initiatives

to develop criteria and indicators for guiding and tracking

ecological, social, and economic conditions involving

forests. The Santiago Declaration (in 1995) established the

criteria and indicators of forest sustainability recommended

by the Montreal Process. The 12 nations (Argentina,

Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Mexico, New

Zealand, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United

States, and Uruguay) whose representatives signed the

Santiago Declaration participate in a policy-level working

group and a technology advisory committee. These

nations account for 60 percent of worldwide forest area

and 35 percent of the world’s population (Montreal

Process Working Group 2003).

The United States participates actively in the Montreal

Process, and has made a political commitment to use

criteria and indicators to track progress in forest sustainability. In 1997, the United States issued the First Approximation Report for Sustainable Forest Management:

Report of the United States on the Criteria and Indicators

for the Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal

Forests (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

1997). The report set in place the foundation for future

assessments of management and monitoring capabilities

across the United States, a process that led to the National

Report on Sustainable Forests—2003 (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 2004). The USDA Forest

Service had the lead role in developing the 2003 report,

doing so in partnership with 11 other Federal agencies, a

number of State agencies, and a variety of nongovernmental

organizations, including the Roundtable on Sustainable

Forestry (a partnership of public and private organizations

and individuals promoting the national goal of sustainable

forests through implementation of a set of criteria and

indicators for sustainable forest management) (Roundtable

on Sustainable Forestry 1998).

The framework for determining conditions of forest sustainability consists of 7 criteria collectively described by 67

indicators. Criteria of sustainability are goals or standards

that describe broad public values regarding forests; they

represent categories of conditions or processes that are

considered essential to forest sustainability. Indicators are

measurable conditions that can be used to determine the

status of criteria. By quantitative or qualitative measurements, they describe specific circumstances attendant to

criteria and can demonstrate trends when measured periodically (Montreal Process Working Group 2003, National

Research Council 1999). The seven criteria (and number

of related indicators) are as follows:

• Conservation of biological diversity (Criterion One—

9 indicators)

• Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems

(Criterion Two—5 indicators)

• Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality

(Criterion Three—3 indicators)

• Conservation and maintenance of soil and water

resources (Criterion Four—8 indicators)

• Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon

cycles (Criterion Five—3 indicators)

• Maintenance and enhancement of long-term multiple

socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of society

(Criterion Six—19 indicators)

• Legal, institutional, and economic framework for forest

conservation and sustainability (Criterion Seven—

20 indicators).

Review and Evaluation Process

Focus and Scope of Review

Criterion Seven, namely “legal, institutional and economic

framework for forest conservation and sustainability,” is the

focus of this review. Interest in forest sustainability is made

evident by legal, institutional, and economic frameworks

that are adopted and implemented by nations. It is via such

frameworks that nations (and the individuals that collectively compose them) express their interest in and expectations for the use, management, and protection of forests.

While ecological and related biophysical conditions may

receive much attention, it is the legal, institutional, and

economic conditions established by nations that are the

practical basis for identifying and addressing concerns

about forest sustainability by means of appropriately

designed and properly implemented policies and programs.
This review addresses 12 of the 20 indicators associated

with Criterion Seven. Because the other eight indicators

addressed capacity to conduct and apply research, they

were not addressed by this review. Grouped within three

major categories, the indicators of concern are as follows

(Montreal Process Working Group 2003):

Legal framework—The body of laws and customary rules

that direct actions of citizens. The extent to which the legal

framework (laws, regulations, and guidelines) supports the

conservation and sustainable management of forests,

including the extent to which it:

• Clarifies property rights, provides for appropriate land

tenure arrangements, recognizes customary and traditional rights of indigenous people, and provides means of

resolving property disputes by due process (Indicator 48)

• Provides for periodic forest-related planning, assessment,

and policy reviews that recognize the range of forest

values, including coordination with relevant sectors

(Indicator 49)

• Provides opportunities for public participation in public

policy and decisionmaking related to forests and public

access to information (Indicator 50)

• Encourages best-practice codes for forest management

(Indicator 51)

• Provides for the management of forests to conserve

special environmental, cultural, social, and scientific

values (Indicator 52).

Institutional framework—The public and private organizations that are responsible for implementing policies and

programs to promote sustainable forest management. The

extent to which the institutional framework supports the

conservation and sustainable management of forests,

including the capacity to:

• Provide for public-involvement activities and public

education, awareness, and extension programs, and

make available forest-related information (Indicator 53)

• Undertake and implement periodic forest-related

planning, assessment, and policy review, including

cross-sectoral planning and coordination (Indicator 54)

• Develop and maintain human skills across relevant

disciplines (Indicator 55)

• Develop and maintain efficient physical infrastructure to

facilitate the supply of forest products and services and

support forest management (Indicator 56)

• Enforce laws, regulations, and guidelines (Indicator 57).

Economic framework—The expression of private selfinterest in forest sustainability via responses to market

systems that are tempered by society-imposed rules and

limitations. The extent to which the economic framework

(economic policies and measures) supports the conservation and sustainable management of forests through:

• Investment and taxation policies and a regulatory

environment that recognizes the long-term nature of

investments and permits the flow of capital in and out of

the forest sector in response to market signals, nonmarket

economic valuations, and public policy decisions in

order to meet long-term demands for forest products

and services (Indicator 58)

• Nondiscriminatory trade policies for forest products

(Indicator 59).

Procedure and Direction of Review

Presentation of information—The review of information

available to describe conditions associated with each

indicator is structured as follows:

Rationale and interpretation—The importance of the

indicators and the type of information that potentially

could be gathered to describe them is presented. Each

indicator’s rationale for importance was taken with little

alteration from the reasoning suggested by the Montreal

Process Technical Advisory Committee (Montreal Process

Technical Advisory Committee 2000). For clarity, definitions of key words and phrases found in each indicator

were developed.

Conceptual or theoretical background—The conceptual

background and theoretical principles considered to be

foundations or fundamental reasons for the substance of

each indicator are briefly presented.

Current capacity and capability—The results of reviews

of capacity-related information for each indicator are presented. In most cases, the information is structured in the

following way: private sector capacity, Federal Government sector capacity, State government capacity, and local

government capacity. The exception to this format is our

discussion of Indicator 48 (property rights and land

tenure). For each indicator, a summary of information

about current capacity is presented.

Issues and trends—Expected changes in major conditions

associated with each indicator are discussed. The issues and

trends identified are the result of a review of a portion of

the literature devoted to subjects involving the indicator.

Adequacy of information—Descriptions of major information deficiencies (both in quantity and in quality) involving

each indicator are presented, as are recommendations for

addressing such deficiencies. Although the presentations

vary by indicator, information deficiencies are presented

for the following subjects:
• Measurement information (what to measure and how to

measure it)

• Extent of activity information (how much activity occurs)

• Responsible organization information (who is obligated

to engage in the activity)

• Coordination information (extent of cooperation involving activities)

• Procedure information (what processes are followed)

• Investment and incentive information (what resources

are devoted to the activity)

• Effectiveness information (consequences of undertaking

the activity)

• Monitoring information (condition and trends of activity).

Appropriateness of indicator—Information is presented

regarding the usefulness of each indicator as currently

depicted and the extent to which each indicator complements (or competes with) other indicators. In most cases,

suggestions are made for revising the language of an

indicator or merging some indicators.

Capacity and capability focus—The review concentrates

on the identification of information and information

sources that are capable of depicting the current and future

condition or status of each indicator. More particularly, the

review focuses on information that describes the capability

or potential of legal, institutional, and economic frameworks to promote desired conditions of forest sustainability;

the consequences of exercising or implementing such capacity are of lesser concern here. For example, Indicator 49

suggests in part that there must be legal means of providing

for periodic forest-related planning, which from a capacity

perspective leads to information about the number, type,

and currency of laws that require planning activities.

Similarly, Indicator 57 suggests in part that there must be

institutions to enforce laws, regulations, and guidelines,

which from a capacity perspective suggests information

about the organizations that are responsible for implementing enforcement activities (information about number of

agencies, level of financing, magnitude of professional

staffing). The information review sought to avoid focusing

on information describing the results of legal, institutional,

and economic capacities being exercised or implemented

(for example, number of forest plans prepared, effectiveness of enforcement activities). Similarly, a concerted

effort was made to avoid judgments about the negative or

positive value of consequences resulting from implementing a given capacity.

Comprehensive forest-wide concern—The review attempts

to identify measures of legal, institutional, and economic

capacity that might be applied to forests in general, regardless of ownership or responsible party. Responsibility for

forests rests with a very large number of complex organizations. At the Federal Government level, responsibility for

forests is embodied in authorities with many departments,

agencies, and bureaus, including the U.S. Department of

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of

Interior, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Similarly numerous and varied are State government organizations engaged in decisions about the use,

management, and protection of forests. Also, there exist a

variety of private sector organizations that are responsible

for forests, including land trusts, interest groups, industrial

forestry enterprises, and millions of owners of nonindustrial

private forestland. To fully identify the legal, institutional,

and economic capacities associated with this myriad of

public and private responsibilities is beyond the scope of

this review, but we have tried to present an adequate

review of these capacities. For each indicator, the results

are presented in four major categories, namely private

sector capacity, Federal Government capacity, State

government capacity, and local government capacity.

Indicator descriptors—Indicators should be stated in

language that is easy to understand and descriptive of the

subject in question. They should be based on important

principles or concepts, measurable, relevant to stakeholders, sensitive to change, and of an appropriate scale.

Furthermore, the information used to describe their status

should be sufficient in quantity and quality, capable of

being aggregated and analyzed, and gathered in a costeffective way (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 2002; Garcia and others 1999; Williams and others

1998).

The indicators considered here are not all stated with

adequate clarity. In most cases, we have suggested new

language in the hope that this will increase the efficiency

of future information-gathering efforts. The following

revisions are suggested:

• Provides for appropriate land tenure arrangements, and

provides means of resolving property disputes by due

process (Indicator 48)

• Provides for periodic planning, assessment, and policy

reviews that embrace various forest values and fosters

the coordination of forest plans and assessments with

other sectors (Indicator 49)

• Provides opportunity for citizens to participate, in

an informed manner, in decisions affecting forests

(Indicator 50)

• Encourages the application of best forestry practices

considered suitable for specific forest conditions

(Indicator 51)


• Provides for conserving and managing special values

afforded by forests, including amenity, commodity,

ecological, and spiritual values (Indicator 52)

• Provides for educational activities focused on various

segments of the citizenry and the general public

(Indicator 53)

• Provides for periodic planning, assessment, and policy

reviews that embrace various forest values and fosters

the coordination of forest plans and assessments with

other sectors (Indicator 54; merge with Indicator 49)

• Develop and maintain professional and related human

skills across relevant disciplines and resource orientations (Indicator 55)

• Develop and maintain physical infrastructure necessary

to manage and protect forests and to make available the

range of goods and services that forests are capable of

providing (Indicator 56)

• Enforce laws and regulations and ensure implementation

of guidelines (Indicator 57)

• Provides for policies and programs that promote the

long-term flow of capital into and out of public and

private forest sectors in response to changes in market

and nonmarket forces (Indicator 58).

The usefulness of Criterion Seven indicators suggested by

the Montreal Process could be enhanced even further if

more substantial changes were made in their number, descriptions, and relationships. Suggestions for improvements

can come from a number of sources, including publications

in which various organizations address legal, institutional,

and economic conditions relevant to forest sustainability

(Canadian Council of Forest Ministers 1997; Eeronheimo

2001; Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the

Environment 2002; International Tropical Timber Organization 1992; Ministerial Conference on the Protection of

Forests in Europe 1994; Oakley 1997; U.S. Interagency

Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators

2001). We suggest that Indicator 58 (investment, tax, and

regulatory environment) and Indicator 59 (forest products

trade) be moved to Criterion Six. If this is done, Criterion

Seven will focus only on legal and institutional capacity

for forest sustainability. Criterion Seven will then include

only the following:

“Specifically, is the current legal and institutional

framework capable of providing for . . .

• Dependable land tenure and land ownership

arrangements

• Comprehensive planning of forest uses, management,

and protection

• Development and use of comprehensive forest

management guidelines

• Coordination of policies and programs among and

between public and private organizations

• Long-term monitoring and review of policies,

programs, and forest resource conditions

• Processes for anticipating and dealing with conflict

and dissension

• Sustained long-term investments in forests, commensurate with desired benefits

• Diverse kinds of public and private programs to exert

influence over forests

• Opportunity for beginning and lifelong education of

resource professionals

• Access to a wide range of information and information sources by students and citizens

• Research and development focused on critical issues

involving forest use, management, and protection.”

External review and comment—Our discussions of the

indicators were reviewed as follows: First, each discussion

was reviewed by three individuals (one indicator by two

reviewers) who had the option of submitting their comments

anonymously. The reviewers were selected on the basis of

their previous experience with and understanding of the

subjects addressed by an indicator. They were asked to

focus their comments on gaps in information, accuracy of

information, and fairness in presentation of information.

Second, the draft reports for each indicator were reviewed

at two national workshops (in Portland, OR and Washington,

DC), where workshop participants were given an opportunity to discuss and subsequently suggest improvements

in the report on each indicator (Roundtable on Sustainable

Forestry 2002). Third, the draft documents were made

available for comment by the general public via access to

various Web sites used by the USDA Forest Service during

the process of preparing the National Report on Sustainable Forests—2003 (U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service 2004). All reviewer comments were evaluated and, as appropriate, incorporated in revised documents

for each indicator.

Recommendations for future reviews—There is significant uncertainty about the amount, currency, and accuracy

of information available for describing the capacities

pertinent to 12 of the indicators within Criterion Seven.

If legal, institutional, and economic frameworks relevant

to forest sustainability and conservation are to be better

understood and made useful for policy and management

decisions, this uncertainty needs to be addressed. Therefore, recommendations are made for undertaking future

examinations of the information available for describing

capacities for each indicator, assigning such reviews to

specific units in government or the private sector, and


providing the financial and professional resources necessary to carry out such reviews.

Difficulties Encountered by Review

The review of information reporting on legal, institutional,

and economic capacities was at times hindered by the wide

scope of the subject matter embraced by each indicator and

the often huge gaps in information available to describe

indicator capacity. The following are brief descriptions of

difficulties that surfaced during the course of the review

and evaluation.

Definition and specification—The language of the material

reviewed was often ambiguous or problematic. This lack

of clarity and specificity posed significant challenges to

information-gathering efforts. An anonymous reviewer

suggested that many of the indicators are “. . . examples

of how easy it is for a committee to prepare huge lists of

ambiguous material that no one can understand or measure.”

Although removing all ambiguity from an indicator is an

unrealistic goal, the language of an indicator should

convey a common understanding of the subject matter in

question. Specific examples of definition problems

encountered are:

Subcriteria definitions—Major criterion subcategories

within Criterion Seven include references to legal and

institutional conditions. The distinction between the two is

murky, especially as “institutional” may well include legal

considerations (an institution can be either an organization

or an established law or custom). Indicators 49 (planning

. . . ) and 54 (planning . . . ), and Indicators 51 (codes . . . )

and 57 (guidelines . . . ) were especially troublesome in

this respect. Where the search for information about legal

considerations ended and the search for information about

institutional considerations began was not always apparent.

Furthermore, the use of the phrase “legal framework”

suggests that laws resulting from it are objectively interpreted and administered. The reality is that administrative

discretion and political influences often affect administrative processes.

Indicator language—Words and phrases included in many

indicators were often found to be ambiguous, ill-defined,

and poorly constructed. Examples of this include “public

participation” (Indicator 50), “best-practice codes”

(Indicator 51), “conserve special values” (Indicator 52),

“public education” (Indicator 53), “cross-sectoral planning” (Indicator 54), and “efficient physical infrastructure” (Indicator 56). Some would find the language used to

describe individual indicators contradictory (for example,

“management of forests” and “preserve special values”

(Indicator 52). In other cases, confusion exists because

certain phrases are not widely used (or accepted) in most

forestry settings in the United States (for example, “bestpractice codes”).

Indicator substance—Phrases used to describe some indicators are presented as though their scientific and technical foundations are clear and fully agreed to. This is not

always the case, and where it is not, this has implications

for information gathering. For example, physical infrastructure (Indicator 56) is generally thought of as underlying large-scale capital assets (for example, roads, bridges,

communications systems). However, some authorities

suggest that forests (in a biological sense) should be

regarded as the biophysical infrastructure required to

support various values associated with forests (for example, wildlife, timber, water). If biota is considered part of

infrastructure, the information gathering task becomes

even more challenging.

Scope and extent—The review was also made difficult by

the often extreme breadth or narrowness of the subject

matter suggested by some indicators. This lack of consistency in scale (or breadth) often posed a challenge to

determining when sufficient information had been accumulated and properly evaluated. Specific examples of

scoping problems encountered are:

Organizational scope—Laws and organizations affecting

forests are numerous and have great influence over the

use, management, and protection of forests. Determining

which legal and institutional frameworks are relevant to

descriptions of capacity was difficult. For example, the

USDA Forest Service has major forest resource responsibilities, the USDI Bureau of Land Management has less

responsibility in this area, and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration has still less. Should the

influence of each of these organizations be discussed?

Similarly, some laws focus directly on forests (for example, the National Forest Management Act of 1976) while

others are less directly focused but nevertheless affect

forests (for example, the Coastal Zone Management Act of

1972). The extent to which information-gathering activities were made to be “forest centric” determined much

about the extent of the reach for information.

Forest benefit scope—The range of benefits (or values)

provided by forests is extensive (for example, water, range,

recreation, timber, aesthetics, wildlife). Words or phrases

included in some indicators appeared to favor the seeking

of information about certain forest benefits. For example,

“encouraging best practice codes (BMPs)” (Indicator 51)

and “enforce regulations and guidelines” (Indicator 57) traditionally have signified a major focus on water resources.

Similarly, “conserving special values” (Indicator 52) appears

to exclude consideration of commodity values associated

with forests as special values. And “infrastructure capacity”


(Indicator 56) suggests a focus on the infrastructure required

for wood-based products and their processing, leaving

little room for consideration of infrastructure required to

provide other forest values and related management activities (for example, water supplies, recreation activities,

forest protection).

Indicator scope—Nearly every indicator overlapped

another indicator and often overlapped indicators in the

other criteria, thus creating to a potential for duplication

in gathering and evaluating information (see individual

indicator write-ups for details). Such overlapping was

especially obvious in the case of public involvement and

public participation in Indicators 50 and 53, forest planning and assessment in Indicators 49 and 54, and investment and trade policies in Indicators 58 and 59.

Indicator scale—Indicators at times differed widely in

scale. This led to a narrow focus for information gathering

in some cases and to very wide-ranging information gathering in others. For example, “maintain human resource

skills across disciplines” (Indicator 55) is reasonably

narrow, but “investment, tax, and regulatory environment”

(Indicator 58) is extremely broad.

Rationale and interpretation—The rationales for the

indicators were at times difficult to interpret and in some

cases may not be supported by evidence or experience (the

rationale for each indicator was taken with only minor

modification from conclusions reached by the Technical

Advisory Committee of the Montreal Process). Phrases

such as “formal legal mechanisms are needed to conserve

special forest values,” “tax policies are critical to maintenance of forestland,” “forests are managed more sustainably if citizens have opportunity to influence policies and

programs,” “forest practice codes are integral to forest

sustainability,” and “a well-informed public promotes civic

participation in forest activities” create many uncertainties

(Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Information availability and quality—The availability

and quality of information relevant to the indicators was in

most cases very unpredictable. In some cases, an information base simply did not exist, while in other cases information was outdated, incomplete, or unreliable (information

to describe trends was especially difficult to locate). When

information was available, it was often difficult to aggregate across geographies, across agencies or organizations,

across public and private sectors, or vertically from local

to national levels. Specific suggestions for future investigations are presented for each indicator. This review also

suggested that there is a need for further development of

the conceptual bases on which many of the indicators are

predicated.

Major Findings and Conclusions

The review of capacity information for the 12 indicators

associated with Criterion Seven sought information from

many sources. What are the major findings of the review?

The following observations regarding current capacity to

describe Criterion Seven indicators are suggested:

• Legal capacity for accomplishing forest sustainability is

substantial, although often highly dispersed, is frequently

in conflict (within and between governments), and is

often subject to the widely differing interpretations of

an appreciable number of Federal, State, and local units

of government. The extent to which this potential capacity is actually exercised by implementing agencies is

highly variable in intensity and consistency. The private

sector is often responsible for responding to (implementing) publicly established legal capacity (for example,

best-practice codes, conservation of special values).

• Institutional capacity for accomplishing forest sustainability is also substantial, although it is also highly

dispersed, frequently in conflict (within and between

governments), and often subject to widely differing

interpretations by public and private organizations. The

expression of this institutional capacity is often limited

by constraints on access to financial and human resources.

The private sector represents significant institutional

capacity, especially in terms of public education and

human resource skills.

• Economic capacity for forest sustainability is substantial,

as are the fiscal and tax incentives that promote positive

outcomes in market behavior. In recent years, economic

incentive capacity has been broadened considerably, and

is now often applied to both commodity and noncommodity goods and services provided by forests. The

legal capacity to constrain private-sector responses to

markets is substantial, especially with respect to the

application of forest practices.

Is the Nation on a trajectory away from sustainability and,

if so, does the cause of this flight rest with faults in our

legal, institutional, and economic frameworks? The

answer can only be a nebulous “yes,” in some cases, and

“no,” in other cases. Interpretation of the overall legal,

institutional, and economic capacity for forest sustainability at the national level is difficult. The information

describing the indicators that are used to monitor Criterion

Seven is sending very mixed messages. On the one hand is

a clear indication that legal, institutional, and economic

capacities to promote sustainability are large and widely

available in both public and private sectors. Yet on the

other hand the information regarding the actual application

of these capacities in favor of sustainability interests is

often quite mixed and frequently clouded by uncertainty.


Fortunately, capacity reviews focused on Criterion Seven

are likely to continue in the future. With a significant

investment in the gathering of additional information and

the refining of existing information, these uncertainties

could become of lesser concern. The Nation may then

have a better basis from which to sense the direction its

legal, institutional, and economic frameworks are tending,

and the extent to which they facilitate or hinder forest

sustainability and conservation.

Literature Cited

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1997. Criteria and indicators of

sustainable forest management in Canada: technical report. Ottawa,

Canada: Canadian Forest Service. 145 p.

Eeronheimo, O. 2001. Legal frameworks in criteria and indicator

approaches. In: Raison, R.J.; Brown, A.G.; Flinn, D.W., eds. Criteria

and indicators for sustainable forest management. IUFRO Res. Series

7. New York, NY: CABI Publishing: 131-144.

Garcia, S.M.; Staples, D.J.; Chesson, J. 1999. FAO guidelines for the

development and use of indicators for sustainable development of

marine capture fisheries: an Australian example of application. Rome,

Italy: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. [Not paged].

Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. 2002. State of

the nation’s ecosystems. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press. 288 p.

International Tropical Timber Organization. 1992. Guidelines for the

sustainable management of natural tropical forests. PS-1. http://www.

itto.or.jp/live/PageDisplayHandler?pageId=201. [Date accessed: June

2002].

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 1994.

Helsinki process. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Agriculture and

Forestry of Finland, Helsinki Liaison Unit. http://www.iisd.ca/forestry/

hel.html. [Date accessed: June 2002].

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate

and boreal forests: Criterion Seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2001].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: January 2003].

National Research Council. 1999. Our common journey: A transition

toward sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

363 p.

Oakley, G. 1997. Sustainable development indicators in Australia: progress on their development. Sydney, Australia: Australian Bureau of

Statistics. [Not paged].

Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry. 1998. Roundtable on sustainable

forestry. http://www.sustainableforests.net/index.php. [Date accessed:

January 2002].

Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry. 2002. Workshop reviews: national

report on sustainable forests. Portland, OR and Washington, DC.

http://www.sustainableforests.net/summaries.php. [Date accessed: June

2002].

Sitarz, D. 1994. Agenda 21: The earth summit strategy to save our planet.

Boulder, CO: Earth Press. 321 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. First approximation

report for sustainable forest management: report of the United States

on the criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of

temperate and boreal forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 220 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Sourcebook on

criteria and indicators of forest sustainability in the northeastern area.

NA-TP-03-02. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. 64 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. National report on

sustainable forests—2003. FS-766. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/

sustain/. [Date accessed: April 2004].

U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators.

2001. Sustainable development in the United States: an experimental

set of indicators. http://www.sdi.gov/. [Date accessed: June 2002].

Williams, J.; Duinker, P.; Wedeles, C. 1998. Assessing progress in sustainable forest management: proposed criteria and indicators for the Upper

Great Lakes Region. Hayward, WI: Great Lakes Forest Alliance. http://

www.lsfa.org/pub_GLFA_rep2.html. [Date accessed: June 2002].

	

Information Review and Evaluation:

Legal Framework




The full text of Indicator 48 is as follows: Extent to which

the legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supports

the conservation and sustainable management of forests,

including the extent to which it clarifies property rights,

provides for appropriate land tenure arrangements,

recognizes customary and traditional rights of indigenous

people, and provides means of resolving property disputes

by due process (Montreal Process Working Group 2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

In many regions of the world, lack of clear and appropriate

land tenure arrangements are the greatest cause of unsustainable forestry. Stable property rights and the assurance

that these rights will be protected, or disputed through due

process, are essential for sustainable forest management.

It is suggested that those who depend on forests for daily

subsistence and livelihood, or have a connection to forests

over long periods of time, will take responsibility for better

long-term care of the land if they can own the forest or can

be assured of access to needed forest resources (Montreal

Process Technical Advisory Committee 2000, Montreal

Process Working Group 2003).

Useful information for measuring this indicator can be

obtained by compiling laws and customs that address

property rights, land tenure arrangements, and the rights

of indigenous peoples. Also germane are summaries and

assessments of laws and customs that provide access to

processes considered necessary for the successful resolution

of disputes over property. If they are prepared carefully,

these compilations can allow for subsequent determination

of how well various interpretations of property rights are

being implemented and the extent to which they are

successful in fostering long-term protection of ownership

rights in forests and forestland. They can also facilitate the

identification of deficiencies, duplications, and overlapping responsibilities, so that corrective action can be

taken (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee

2000).

Indicator 48 suggests a number of concepts and principles

that are to be identified and assessed. Definitions of these

concepts are as follows: property rights are claims, titles,

or interests in property that are enforceable by law, custom,

or tradition; land tenure arrangements are instruments or

relationships used by people, governments, or corporate

bodies to establish control over, occupy, or use property;

customary and traditional rights are claims, titles, or

interests in property that are enforceable by custom, legend,

inheritance, tradition, or folklore; and due process means

of resolving property dispute are means of guaranteeing

procedural fairness where actions of one party would

deprive another of liberty or property (Gifis 1984).

Conceptual Background

Property is a social notion that expresses the political and

economic order of society wherein governance systems

legitimize, protect, and challenge the interests of one party

over another (Hanna and others 1996). Property is generally viewed as a bundle of rights, rules, and responsibilities

that expresses the relationships between rights holders,

rights regarders, and rights protectors (Warren 1998).

Rights consist of power, privilege, or demand inherent in

one person and expressed over another. Any change in the

structure of rights usually involves an increase in the rights

of some and decreases in the rights of others. Current

theories suggest that rights are exercised under at least

three different property regimes: private property, common

property, and public-State property (Warren 1997) (table 1).

Over time, notions of property may move from one category to another, often as a reflection of society’s changing

values and the scarcity of certain types of property. Notions

of property can change in response to many different conditions, including market behavior, social and political

sentiments, scientific knowledge, and new technologies.

Property rights are most accurately regarded as a social

construct that survives only as long as society maintains

the will and desire to enforce it (Marchak 1998).

Characteristics (or components) that are used to define and

evaluate property rights include the concepts of completeness and exclusivity, transferability, and enforceability

(Field 2001, Rideout and Hessein 1997). Completeness

refers to the degree to which ownership rights may be

attenuated, such as through mineral rights, water rights, and

utility easements. Exclusivity complements the concept of

completeness and refers to the degree to which all benefits

and costs accrue to the owner. Exclusivity and completeness

have little meaning if the resource is migratory, enforcement of property rights is too expensive to be practical, or

the property is located in a jurisdiction without a fully

developed legal system (Rideout and Hessein 1997).

1 Hibbard, Research Specialist, and Ellefson, Professor, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Property Rights and Land Tenure (Indicator 48)

Calder M. Hibbard and Paul V. Ellefson1


Where property rights and property are transferable, this

creates an incentive to maintain maximum market values.

An efficient and well-established property rights system

provides security that rights will be recognized in the future

by potential competitors for these rights and that the rules

are well understood. In the United States, the concept of

property rights is a storied and continually evolving set of

ideas and constructs. Much of the present comprehension

of property rights has its origin in English Common Law,

emanating from the Magna Carta, but little of what is considered property rights is codified into law in the United

States. Property rights in the United States are restricted

by the police powers of the State and by each level of

government’s power of taxation, eminent domain, and

escheat (Warren 1997). Property rights are constitutionally

addressed under the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights,

which states that “No person shall be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall

private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It is important to note that property rights are

not given direct protection under this clause, but are

afforded due process only when they are addressed.

Property rights in forests are expressed as relationships

between individuals and groups with respect to forestland.

In the context of the sustainability of forests, property

rights include the ability to exclude or control access;

enjoy or treasure; dispose of, alienate, or transfer; manage

or manipulate; and use, withdraw, consume, or transform

(Warren 1997). The existence of property rights can provide for or detract from sustainable forest resource use and

management. Without some set of agreed-to and enforceable property rights forest owners may fail to invest in

productive activities involving their forests. This lack of

private investment may have deleterious effects on economic efficiency and sustainability (Zhang 1999). On the

other hand, the state may wish to weaken the property

rights of some in order to enhance benefits that it views as

important to many or all citizens. This problem of proper

benefit allocation inevitably leads to compensation and a

degree of economic inefficiency (Zhang 1999).

Table 1—Rights, responsibilities, and rules in three example property regimes

Property regime

Characteristic Private property Common property Public-State property

Resource rights Exclusion, disposal, use, Exclusion, disposal, use, Exclusion, disposal, use,

enjoyment enjoyment enjoyment

Right holder(s) Individual or corporation Identifiable, interdependent State (government on behalf

group or community of citizens)

Responsibilities (liabilities) Refrain from socially Group: Refrain from socially Maintain social objectives;

of right holder(s) unacceptable uses unacceptable uses determine rules

Member: Respect intra-group

rules

Expectation of right Expect socially acceptable Expect socially acceptable Expect socially acceptable

regarder uses uses uses

Responsibilities (liabilities) Observe rules set by right Observe rules set by right Observe rules; refrain from

of right regarder holders; refrain from holders; refrain from preventing use

preventing use preventing use

Rules and regulations Determined by individual Determined by identifiable Determined by statutes,

or corporation interdependent groups or rules, common law

community

Enforcement and protection State Intra-group: group and State State

External: State

Note: Additional property regimes are “common pool resources” and “open access resources.”

Source: Bromley (1991); Warren (1997).


Property rights notions are a construct of Western civilizations. In some instances, traditional and customary rights

involving property are not necessarily codified in a Western

sense but are respected and observed by the cultural group

creating those rights. This is the case in Indian cultures in

the United States. In such cultures, rights to resources are

intricately tied to historic perspectives on resource use and

to social mechanisms for dealing with competition for

resources. Diversity of resource control systems is high and

often correlated to a particular environmental setting and

time (Frykenberg 1977, Vecsey and Venables 1980, Warren

1997). Compounding these perspectives on property rights

and land tenure concepts is the reality that government can

hold property in trust for certain groups of people. In 1990,

nearly 16 million acres of forestland were held in trust for

American Indians by the U.S. Government. The latter has

a trust responsibility to protect, conserve, utilize, manage,

and enhance Indian forestland and the economic and other

benefits from Indian forestland, in perpetuity, including

the provision of essential primary and secondary roads

(U.S. Congress 1990).

Current Legal Capacity

Information clarifying property rights, land tenure arrangements, the rights of Indian peoples, and means of resolving

property disputes is extensive and very rich. Unfortunately,

the implications of this information for sustainable forestry

have not been systematically and comprehensively assessed

and analyzed. The most important information sources are

found in judicial case law and its interpretation. Other

sources include academic and popular presses (especially

during periods of uncertainty regarding property rights),

periodic surveys of forestland ownership (for example,

Birch 1996), and legal case books and databases available

from private sources. As interest in the development of

new approaches to resolving conflicts over property and

property rights has increased, reports describing such

mechanisms as land trusts and conservation easements

have become more common (Morrisette 2001).

Property Rights and Land Tenure

Federal legal clarifications—Property rights and land

tenure arrangements have been dealt with and meaningfully clarified and shaped by Federal courts. The courts

have dealt both with disputes between private parties and

also with disputes between private and public entities. For

example, the ability of States and local governments to

zone land as an established aspect of police power has

been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reinman v. City

of Little Rock 237 U.S. 177 (1915), Fischer v. St. Louis

194 U.S. 223 (1904), and Bacon v. Walker 204 U.S. 394

(1907). These rulings were supported by and drawn from

public nuisance law. In the last 100 years, the Supreme

Court has addressed the Fifth Amendment and what constitutes a taking in a governmental regulatory context. This

was first directly addressed in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon

260 U.S. 393 (1922) in which it is held that “while property

may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too

far it will be recognized as a taking.” Since this ruling,

Federal courts have considered the effects of a regulation

on a property’s value, usually requiring a complete loss of

private value before the action in question is considered a

taking (Wiebe and others 1996, 1998). These clarifications

are ongoing and evolutionary, with the most recent refinement of partial regulatory takings in Palazolo v. Rhode

Island set forth by the Supreme Court in June 2001. In this

case, the Court ruled that the acquisition of land with notice

of a prior regulation does not, in itself, bar the buyer from

claiming that the regulation constitutes a taking. A study

by the Congressional Research Service found that of 135

Federal takings cases tried between 1990 and 1994, only

21 were found to be takings (Meltz 1995).

Much of recent effort to clarify property rights and land

tenure arrangements in the United States has been in

response to Federal environmental legislation. A number

of Federal laws relate to usufructory rights and restrictions

on Federal lands (Appendix A). Especially significant

examples from a property rights perspective are the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (as amended) (especially section 404); the Clean Air Act of 1955 (as amended);

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (as

amended); the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (“Superfund”) of 1980

(as amended); the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969; and the often-cited Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Although the last 10 years have seen a number of congressional proposals to protect private property rights and to

clarify land tenure arrangements, none of these has been

enacted into law.

State legal clarifications—Although the Federal Government has engaged importantly in clarifying matters of

property rights, property law and its interpretation has been

primarily a State responsibility. State governments have

proceeded to establish various laws, rules, and administrative procedures that clarify property rights and land tenure

arrangements involving forests, most of which have been

in response to perceptions of local infringement on the

rights of private property owners (Cheng and Ellefson

1993, Malmsheimer and Floyd 1998). One of the earliest

judicial rulings on the matter (1947) involved Washington’s

forest practice regulatory law, in which the State’s right to

regulate privately prescribed practices was affirmed by the

U.S. Supreme Court (32 Wash. 2d 551, 202 P.2d 906, 70 S.

Cr. 147 [1947]) (Ellefson 2000). Property-rights protecting

initiatives important to sustainable forestry take many


forms, including nuisance classification laws, right to

practice forestry laws, and laws restricting ordinances.

In 1996, 31 States had statutory provisions that to some

extent protected landowners against possible court findings

that their forestry activities constituted nuisances under

State law (table 2) (Malmsheimer and Floyd 1998). Ten

States had right-to-farm laws that did not specifically

apply to forestry, but had other statutes in which forestry

activities were categorized with agricultural activities.

Eight States had right-to-farm laws, but did not categorize

forestry activities as agricultural activities in other statutes.

States have also addressed concerns that local governments

may establish ordinances that classify forestry activities as

nuisances (table 2). Ten States have State laws (for example, forest practice laws) that prohibit such ordinances;

five have laws that prohibit local zoning ordinances that

limit forestry activities; and four States have statutory

provisions to link local ordinances with broader State forest

practice regulatory laws. These laws generally provide a

defense of forestry activities, often by banning or partially

banning local ordinances that limit forestry practices on

private land (Ellefson and others 1995). These laws also

restrict classification as nuisances to such things as conducting forestry activities in a negligent manner or causing

flooding or pollution. Most State laws restricting local

ordinances focused on forestry activities have been enacted

since 1989. Three were enacted in the 1970s, 18 in the

1980s, and 10 in the 1990s through 1996 (Malmsheimer

and Floyd 1998).

Protecting private property from takings has also been a

focus of State laws. In 1996, 18 States had passed such

laws (table 3) (Zhang 1996). They were chiefly of two

types: assessment laws, which are procedural and require

that agencies follow certain review processes and guidelines so that unnecessary takings are avoided; and compensation laws, which are more substantive and provide for the

recovery of financial losses resulting from partial takings

of private property. In Mississippi, for example, compensation of private forest landowners is required if State

regulations reduce the value of the landowner’s property

by 40 percent or more. All of these State laws have been

enacted in the 1990s and generally mimic laws that have

been proposed to the U.S. Congress.

Due Process and Dispute Resolution

The concept of due process, like the concept of property

rights, has evolved over the years, changing mostly through

interpretation by Federal courts. Due process is a historical

product tracing back to Britain. The first mention of it was

in a statutory rendition of one of the chapters of the Magna

Carta in 1354. Federal courts have seen fit to clarify the

meaning of due process as it relates to property and land

tenure arrangements. The focus has been on interpretation

of the Fifth Amendment (previously quoted) and the Fourteenth Amendment “...nor shall any State deprive any

person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law.” The Fifth Amendment applied only to the Federal

Government until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

Importantly, the fact that property rights are protected by

due process is of little value unless there is knowledge of

what due process entails.

Federal courts have clarified that due process is more than

a mandated procedure determined by the legislative branch.

Due process “ . . . is a restraint on the legislative as well as

on the executive and judicial powers of the government,

and cannot be construed as to leave congress free to make

any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will,” Murray’s

Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272

(1856). This ruling is supported in other cases including

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward 17 U.S. 518-

82 (1819) and Jones v. Robbins 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 329

(1857). In working with administrative agencies, the court

has ruled that the demands of due process do not require a

hearing at any particular point in the proceeding, so long

as a hearing is held prior to an order becoming effective,

Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator 312 U.S. 126. 152. 153

(1941). The court has held that when the Constitution does

require a hearing, it must be a fair hearing, held before a

tribunal that meets currently prevailing standards of

impartiality, Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath 339 U.S. 33,50

(1950) and Arnett v. Kennedy 416 U.S. 134, 170 (1974).

The court has also held that a party must be given an

opportunity to present evidence and to know the claims of

the opposing party and to meet them, Margan v. United

States 304 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1938), Gonzales v. United States

348 U.S. 407 (1955), United States v. Nugent 346 U.S. 1

(1956), and Gonzales v. United States 364 U.S. 59 (1960).

Federal courts have spoken frequently on how the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are

to be implemented. Their rulings set forth certain fundamental principles such as advance notice of alleged claims,

hearings prior to decisions, hearing procedures, adequate

representation, and the nature of evidence submitted at

hearings. These prescriptions, and many more, are the

foundations that enable society to meet the intent and

spirit of constitutional provisions involving due process. In

recent years, however, a number of additional approaches

involving conflict management have evolved and have

been suggested to be of value for addressing conflict over

property. They include various forms of consensus-driven

processes (negotiation, facilitation, mediation) as well as

many varieties of adversarial drive processes (arbitration,

administrative hearings, judicial proceedings). Although

judicial proceedings involving formal procedures of due

process have been given considerable notoriety in recent


Table 2—State statutory provisions protecting forest practices from identification as nuisances and restricting local

government regulation of forest practices, by State (1996)

Statutory provisions protecting Statutory provisions restricting

forest practices from local government ordinances

being considered nuisances regulating forest practices

Statutory

Statutory provision exists:

Statutory Statutory provision ordinances

Statutory Potential provision provision exists: linked to

Region and provision statutory does not exists: no no zoning forest

State exists provision exist ordinances ordinances practice law

North

Connecticut X X

Delaware X

Illinois X

Indiana X X

Iowa X

Maine X X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts X

Michigan X

Minnesota X X

Missouri X X

New Hampshire X X

New Jersey X

New York X

Ohio X X

Pennsylvania X X

Rhode Island X

Vermont X

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X

South

Alabama X

Arkansas X

Florida X

Georgia X

Kentucky X X

Louisiana X X

Mississippi X X

North Carolina X

Oklahoma X

South Carolina X

Tennessee X X

Texas X

Virginia X

West

Alaska X

Arizona X

California X X

Colorado X

Hawaii X X

Idaho X X

Kansas X

Montana X X

Nebraska X

Nevada

New Mexico X

North Dakota X

Oregon X X

South Dakota X

Utah X

Washington X X

Wyoming X

Note: Nevada has not enacted a right-to-practice-forestry law that provides protection against nuisance lawsuits.

Source: Malmsheimer and Floyd (1998).


years, other less formal and more collaborative approaches

to conflict over property rights have also become available.

Unfortunately, a comprehensive review of their application

to property rights issues has not been carried out (Moulton

1995).

Rights of Indian Peoples

Indian peoples in the United States have experienced a

much different evolution of property rights and land tenure

arrangements. Very few Indian tribes ever conceived of the

idea of land ownership, and even those few who did thought

of it in a much different way than the first arriving Europeans. In 1790, Congress adopted one of the first laws

affecting property rights of Indian peoples: the first Nonintercourse Act, which reserved the right to acquire Indian

lands to the United States to the exclusion of individuals

and States. Some tribes have brought suit for recovery of

lands acquired in violation of the 1790 statute, such as

South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe Inc. 476 U.S. 498

(1986).

United States courts first examined the issue of Indian

land ownership and title to lands in Johnson v. M’Intosh

21 U.S. 543 (1823), stating that tribes held their lands by

“Indian title” and that tribes had the right to occupy the

land and retain possession of it (Nash 1999). A significant

statute in the evolution of Indian property rights is the

General Allotment Act of 1887. This law legitimized the

notion that Indians would assimilate European cultural

attitudes more quickly if they were owners of parcels of

land and were encouraged to engage in agricultural activities. Each individual was to be given 80 acres of agricultural land or 160 acres of grazing land. The law had

limited success, resulting in a large loss of tribal lands. It

was subsequently addressed by the Indian Reorganization

Act of 1934, which prohibited any further appropriation of

land and restored any surplus lands to tribal ownership.

In 1946, the Indian Claims Commission was established to

hear claims which had been barred by a 1863 statute that

prohibited Indian tribes from making claims against the

United States. The Commission was allowed to hear five

types of claims including “claims arising from the taking

by the United States, whether as a result of a treaty of

cession or otherwise, of lands owned or occupied by the

claimant without payment for such lands or compensation

agreed to by the claimant” 60 Stat. 1049, 25 U.S.C. 70a

(Nash 1999). Recently, there has been an increasing level

of autonomy in decisionmaking on tribal lands regarding

forestland, beginning in earnest with the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act in 1971. This law was followed by

Table 3—State statutory provisions addressing the taking of private property,

by State (1996)

Statute requiring Statute requiring Statute requiring

assessment prior compensation of combination of

to regulatory landowner for assessment and

State implementation regulatory taking compensation

Arizona X

Delaware X

Florida X

Idaho X

Indiana X

Kansas X

Louisiana X

Mississippi X

Missouri X

Montana X

North Dakota X

Tennessee X

Texas X

Utah X

Virginia X

Washington X

West Virginia X

Wyoming X

Source: Zhang (1996).


the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance

Act of 1975, which decreased the role of the Division of

Forestry within the Bureau of Indian Affairs in forestrelated decisionmaking on tribal lands. The 1983 Indian

Land Consolidation Act attempted to reduce fractionalization of Indian lands. Finally, the National Indian Forest

Resources Management Act of 1990 strengthened the

position that Indian forestlands are to be treated as private

lands, and not as lands in the public domain (Warren 1998).

Federal statutes and case law affecting land tenure and

forest resources on Indian lands are summarized in table 4.

Summary of Conditions

Property rights, land tenure arrangements, and the rights

of Indian people have evolved through processes involving

law making, traditions, and the operation of private markets. These institutions, and the concepts and principles on

Table 4. Federal statutes and case law affecting land tenure and forest resources on

Indian lands

Year Case or statute

1874 United States v. Cook, 19. S. (Wall) 591 (Declares that Indians possess the right

to occupy land in question but do not have title to it and can cut timber for

clearance only)

1877 Indian General Allotments Act 25 U.S.C. 331 (Authorizes allotment of reserved

lands to individual Indians in tracts of 40, 80, or 160 acres)

1889 Dead and Down Timber Act of Feb. 16, 1889, 25 Stat. 673, 25 U.S.C. 196

(Authorizes sale of dead timber on Indian allotments and reservations for the

benefit of Indians residing on reservations)

1910 Indian Allotments Act of June 26, 1910, Stat. 857, 25 U.S.C. 406, 407

(Authorizes Bureau of Indian Affairs to sell timber on allotted and unallotted

lands)

1934 Indian Reorganization Act, Act of June 18, 1934, ch 576, 48 Stat. 984, 25 U.S.C.

466 (Authorizes Bureau of Indian Affairs to establish rules and regulations to

accomplish sustained yield management of Indian forests)

1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 85 Stat. 688 (Revokes reservations and

Indian allotment authority in Alaska)

1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 88 Stat. 2203-2217

(Authorizes Indian citizens’ rights to control their direction and the way for

doing so)

1980 United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1887 Act did not establish Federal

fiduciary responsibility for management of Indian-allotted forestlands, but 1910

Act had recognized a Federal trust responsibility for the management of Indian

forest resources)

1983 Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq. (Authorizes reduction in

extensive fractionation of individual Indian ownerships)

1990 National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, 104 Stat. 4532 (Authorizes

promotion of cooperative Federal and tribal management and protection of

Indian forest resources)

Source: Warren (1998).


which they are based, often predate the establishment of

the United States. These property rights and tenure arrangements reflect a society’s particular set of fundamental

values and beliefs; they are evolutionary in the sense that

they change as society’s values change; are determined by

due process of law; are essential to and must be stable for

sustainable forest management; and are important to Indian

people, who often have significant links with forests.

In light of the background and current conditions discussed

above, the following observations seem relevant to the

capacity to identify and measure activities involving

property rights and associated subjects:

• Property rights and land tenure arrangements are

extremely diverse, have evolved through time, and are

continuously being defined, interpreted, and revised by

all levels of government. Responsibility for private

actions involving property is increasingly being associated with issues involving claims of rights to property.

• Property rights and land tenure arrangements have been

defined and interpreted mostly in State and Federal case

law. In the last decade, especially important case law

regarding property rights and compensation has been

established by Federal courts.

• Property rights and land tenure arrangements of Indian

peoples have largely been the responsibility of the

Federal Government. In recent years, Federal attention

has focused on the forest resources associated with

Indian peoples and the often special importance of

forests to Indian culture and way of life.

• Processes for resolving disputes over property rights and

land tenure are evolving, although the Constitution

(Fourteenth Amendment) provides the foundation for

citizen protection against State deprivation of life, liberty,

and property. Institutional structures for addressing

disputes are many (legislatures, courts, executive agencies), as are approaches for settling disputes (negotiation, arbitration, collaboration, citizen initiative).

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues and

trends involving the legal setting for property rights and

land tenure arrangements. Examples of this literature

(from which the following issues and trends are drawn)

are: Binkley and others 1996, Bromley 1991, Ellefson and

others 1995, Flick 1994, Goldstein and Watson 1997,

Lund 1995, Morales 1991, Moulton 1995, U.S. Congress

1990, Warren 1997 and 1998, Zhang 1996.

• Property rights and land tenure arrangements are increasingly frequent and contentious political topics (more than

100 bills addressing property rights were introduced

during the 104th Congress) (Goldstein and Watson, 1997).

The reduced space available to the citizenry has fostered

interest in protecting rights thought to accompany ownership of property. Also, increases in Federal environmental law since the late 1960s provide an incentive for

clarification of activities involving property rights and

land tenure.

• Advocacy groups with interests in property issues are

increasing, currently numbering more than five hundred

with membership in the millions (Lund 1995). Although

debates between these groups are often acrimonious and

sometimes violent, the discussions that do occur are

likely to result in better understanding of and tolerance

for a wider variety of property regimes.

• Property rights concepts important to sustainable forestry

are often unclear. In the future, however, they may

become more stable and consistent as a result of the

increased attention devoted to them (statutes, case law,

public discussion). Conversely, continuing controversy

may foster a climate in which there is growing uncertainty over restrictions on certain forestry activities,

increased transaction costs, greater risk of civil and

criminal penalties, and confusion resulting from overlapping government jurisdictions.

• State governments are likely to give increasing attention

to property rights and land tenure conditions considered

important to sustainable forestry. It is likely that new

State laws will identify a right to practice forestry, prohibit local ordinances limiting the practice of forestry,

and prevent legal rulings that identify forestry practices

as nuisances.

• Special property arrangements that support the longterm sustainability of natural resources are increasing in

number and acceptability. These arrangements include

conservation easements, private and public land trusts,

comanagement of private lands, marketing of rights

associated with property (development rights), and debtfor-nature swaps.

• Voluntary actions by landowners and incentives provided

by government and certain private interests are likely to

increase and have further impact on land tenure and on

perceptions of rights in forest property. Voluntary adoption of forestry best management practices and provision of fiscal and tax incentives to deter ownership

fragmentation are examples.

• Increasingly, laws and regulations that address forestry

practices on private lands are being designed to be more

sensitive to private interests in private property. It is also

increasingly suggested that regulations be consistent with

the strong history of public policy in favor of environmental protection or land use control; be rationally based,

reasonably constructed, and developed through due process; be convincingly determined to be directly beneficial
	

to public health and general welfare; and result in benefits that are widely distributed throughout various segments of the public.

• Indian peoples are increasingly seeking and being granted

autonomy of decisionmaking with respect to forest

resources on Indian lands. This is occurring in the context of the expansion of legal authority of Indian people

to determine their own destiny and in the way Indian

organizations address issues involving forest resources

under their control.

Information Adequacy

Specification

The variables or combinations of variables that can be

used to describe property rights, land tenure arrangements,

and ways of resolving disputes over such arrangements are

many. Definition and scope issues abound. For example,

should public lands be part of land tenure discussions? Is

the legal framework of concern more than just formal laws,

regulations, and guidelines? Should property rights assessments include case law, administrative law, and formal

agreements involving property? And how are noncodified

customs and traditions to be addressed in reviews of land

tenure and property rights?

State forestry agency activities involving gathering and

analysis of information regarding property rights, land

tenure, and rights of Indian peoples are very limited. In

1999, lead forestry agencies in only seven States (Delaware,

Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Texas)

specifically stated that they gather and analyze information

about these conditions. Of those States, two indicated that

the information was abundant; three indicated that it was

sufficient; and two indicated that they had access to some,

but very little, information of this sort. Four States indicated that the quality of information was adequate; only

one (Louisiana) stated that it was excellent (National

Association of State Foresters 1999).

Information regarding property rights and land tenure

arrangements as they relate to sustainable forestry in the

United States is critical to building better understanding of

how property ownership influences forest sustainability.

Unfortunately, our understanding of these rights and

arrangements in the context of forests and forestry is often

unclear, primarily because comprehensive information

about them has not been gathered or subjected to any

methodical analysis. Consider the following concerns over

information adequacy:

• Measures of rights and tenure—Variables that might be

used to measure property rights and land tenure arrangements have not been adequately identified. Are current

measures of property rights and land tenure appropriate?

What is their origin and how have they changed over the

years? What alternatives might provide a more effective

representation of property rights and tenure conditions?

• Documentation of types of property rights and tenure

arrangements—Except in isolated circumstances, information about the types of, frequency of, and trends in

land tenure arrangements has not been assembled in any

systematic fashion. What are the specific statutory

expressions of property rights within all property regimes

(Federal, State, local, treaties, land grants)? How consistent are these laws and regulations in their treatment

of property rights as these rights relate to sustainable

forestry? What major trends are occurring in formal

expressions (statutes, rules, treaties, administrative

agreements) of concepts of property and land tenure?

What is the nature of nonstatutory and nonjudicial

expressions of property rights and land tenure (customs

and traditions)? How common and how effective are

institutions that provide for partial claims to property

(easements, trusts)?

• Societal dispute of claims—Information about the number

and types of claims on property rights involving forests

has not been gathered or systematically reviewed for

patterns of importance. How many and how intense are

the disputes? What is the rationale for the disputes? Is

there evidence of stability in certain property rights

claims? What disputes require the attention of current

legal systems and which disputes cannot be resolved by

current systems? How great is the tension between the

public good and private claims to property? What is the

appropriate balance between the sovereign State and

private individuals on matters involving land tenure?

• Security of rights and tenure conditions—Information

about the extent to which current legal and institutional

frameworks provide stability and guarantees of forest

property rights has not been gathered and analyzed.

How common and how significant are conflicting or

overlapping claims on land and resources? How are

rights to surface and subsurface resources in forest settings being addressed? To what extent do the claims of

Indian peoples to forests cloud private property rights?

Are private inholdings within public lands to be considered secure? Do laws providing rights to practice

forestry also extend long-term security to forestry

investments?

• Recognition of rights of Indian peoples—Except in isolated individual cases, information about the type, extent,

and status of claims of Indian peoples to forest resources

has not been adequately documented and analyzed. To

what extent does the legal framework acknowledge and

protect property rights claims of Indian peoples and

historic land and resource claims? Are the customary


and traditional claims of Indian peoples capable of being

codified so that they can be recognized and protected

within existing legal processes? Is there sufficient flexibility within existing legal systems to allow rights claims

based on nontraditional evidence to be recognized and

protected (for example, a religious need to leave no

trace of property use)? How are subsistence claims that

are based upon historic use to be documented, and can

they be resolved through existing legal processes?

• Resolving disputes by due process—Information about

processes for resolving disputes that involve property

rights and land tenure arrangements has not been

compiled comprehensively. What types of processes are

being used and how effective are they in addressing

property rights concerns? Do all current legal frameworks include the elements of due process (notice,

opportunity for comment, appeal)? Do procedures (for

example, giving notice) adequately involve those who

are indirectly as well as directly affected by a claimant’s

dispute? Are there adequate legal mechanisms for

resolving property rights conflicts between Indian

people, historic land claims, and other claims to the use

and ownership of lands and resources?

• Stabilizing influences on rights and tenure—Information about conditions that foster stability and certainty

in property rights and land tenure conditions has not

been gathered and assessed in any meaningful way.

What broad social, political, and economic conditions

(interest rates, taxation, technology) favor or detract

from certainty respecting property rights and tenure

arrangements? What government approaches (fiscal and

tax incentives, well-designed regulatory initiatives,

right-to-practice-forestry statutes) are most appropriate

for securing stability in conditions of property rights?

Can those claiming private property rights in forests

actually facilitate stability in rights to claimed property

(for example, through voluntary acceptance of best

forest management practices)? How are tenure arrangements to be established so as to secure the degree of

certainty required for long-term investment in forests?

• Land ownership stability—Except in a limited number

of cases, changes in land ownership patterns, as influenced by property rights and land tenure conditions,

have not been assessed systematically. What are current

and prospective rates of change in forestland ownership? To what extent is fragmentation or consolidation

of ownership affected by property right and land tenure

considerations?

Recommendations

The capacity to influence forest sustainability will depend

very largely on the existence and functionality of processes

and institutions that are available to protect and ensure

stability in property rights. Where the latter are in dispute,

there must be effective and easily accessible due process

that guides disputing parties toward a solution of the issues

in contention. In the context of Indicator 48, a number of

information voids must be addressed. The following actions

seem appropriate:

• Comprehensive review of legal capacity—Conduct a

comprehensive review of current property rights and

land tenure arrangements with a focus on determining

whether existing authorities, directions, and policies

actually clarify property rights and provide for appropriate land tenure arrangements involving forest resources

(examples of information sources are Westlaw and LexisNexis databases, Federal and State appellate court opinions, and statutes of Federal, State, and local governments). This review should also assess the effectiveness

of current mechanisms and procedures used to resolve

property disputes. Care should be taken to adequately

review the ability to clarify the status of customary and

traditional rights to forest properties sought by Indian

peoples.

• Responsibility for conducting review—Assign responsibility for conducting the review of property rights and

land tenure arrangements to a specific new or existing

research or administrative unit of a Federal agency, a

college or university, or a nonprofit organization actively

engaged in such work. This responsibility should be

assigned to an organization that has a proven track record

of understanding property rights issues and a history of

proposing workable land tenure arrangements as solutions to disputes over property.

• Resources devoted to review—Invest sufficient resources

in the review so that the review can provide the type and

quantity of information necessary to dramatically

improve understanding of current customs, authorities,

and procedures for clarifying property rights and land

tenure arrangements.

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

Indicator 48 contains many words and phrases that are

unclear in definition and intent—for example “clarifies,”

“property rights,” “land tenure arrangements,” “customary

and traditional rights,” “indigenous people,” and “means

of resolving disputes.” Each of these words or phrases

supposedly embodies an agreed-to set of fundamental

concepts and principles, but such is not always the case.

Further compounding the specification problem is that new

words or phrases are continually being suggested, often

without reference to well-established or newly developed

principles or concepts. The indicator would benefit from


rewording such as “provides for appropriate land tenure

arrangements, and provides means of resolving property

disputes by due process.”

Relationship to Other Indicators

Relationships between Indicator 48 and other indicators

are often unclear, especially where these indicators relate

to concepts involving laws and values, public participation, funding, and planning. Specifically, Indicator 48

stands in an unclear relationship to Indicators 38 (investment in forests), 39 (investment in research), 49 (planning

and assessment), 50 (public participation), 52 (special

values), 53 (public involvement and education), 54 (planning and coordination), 57 (enforce laws and codes), 61

(forest inventories), 64 (value integrative methods), and

66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited

Binkley, C.S.; Raper, C.F.; Washburn, C.L. 1996. Institutional ownership

of U.S. timberland. Journal of Forestry. 94(9): 21-28.

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States: 1994.

Resour. Bull. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Bromley, D.W. 1991. Environment and economy: property rights and

public policy. Cambridge, MA: Basic Blackwell Publishers. 247 p.

Cheng, A.S.; Ellefson, P.V. 1993. State forest practice laws and regulations: a review of constitutional and legal environments. Staff Pap. 88.

St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.

49 p.

Coggins, G.C.; Wilkenson, C.F.; Leshy, J.D. 1993. Federal public land

and resources law. Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press. 1,092 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 2000. Gifford Pinchot’s regulatory vision: Has it been

realized? Journal of Forestry. 98(5):14-23.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.S. 1995. Regulation of private

forestry practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,

MN: MN Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Field, Barry C. 2001. Natural resource economics. Boston, MA: McGrawHill Higher Education. 477 p.

Flick, Warren. 1994. Changing times: forest owners and the law. Journal

of Forestry. 92(5): 30-33.

Frykenberg, R.E. 1977. Land control and social structure in Indian

history. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 256 p.

Gifis, S.H. 1984. Law dictionary. New York, NY: Barron’s Educational

Series Publishers. 618 p.

Goldstein, Jon H.; Watson, William D. 1997. Property rights, regulatory

taking, and compensation: implications for environmental protection.

Contemporary Economic Policy. 15(4): 32-65.

Hanna, S.S.; Folke, C.; Karl-Goran, M. 1996. Rights to nature: ecological,

economic, cultural and political principles of institutions for the

environment. Washington, DC: Island Press. 298 p.

Lund, H.H. 1995. Property rights legislation in the States: a review. PERC

Policy Series, Issue PS-1. Bozeman, MT: Political Economy Research

Center. 35 p.

Malmsheimer, R.W.; Floyd, D.W. 1998. The right to practice forestry:

laws restricting nuisance suits and municipal ordinances. Journal of

Forestry. 96(8): 27-32.

Marchak, P.M. 1998. Who owns natural resources in the United States

and Canada. Work. Pap. 20, North American series. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin, Land Tenure Center. 16 p.

Meltz, R. 1995. The property rights issue. Report 95-200A. Washington,

DC: U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service. 24 p.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate

and boreal forests: Criterion Seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Morales, L.A. 1991. Using private land trusts and conservation easements

to protect the environment: a bibliography. Monticello, IL: Vance

Bibliographies. [Not paged].

Morrisette, P.M. 2001. Conservation easements and the public good:

preserving the environment on private lands. Natural Resources

Journal. 41(2): 373-426.

Moulton, B. 1995. Takings legislation: protection of property rights or

threat to the public interest. Environment. 37(2): 44-45.

Nash, D. 1999. Indian lands. http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/ilands/

ilands_9.html. [Date accessed: August 2001].

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation

assessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date

accessed July 2001].

Rideout, D.B.; Hessein, H. 1997. Principles of forest and environmental

economics. Fort Collins, CO: Resource & Environmental Management

Publishers. [Not paged].

U.S. Congress. 1990. National Indian Forest Resources Management Act.

Act of September 19, 1990 [Hearings: 136th Congress, U.S. House of

Representatives, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.] Serial

Number 1001-65. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. The principal laws

relating to forest service activities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture. 1,163 p.

Vecsey, C.; Venables, R.W. 1980. American Indian environments: ecological issues in Native American history. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse

University Press. 208 p.

Warren, S.T. 1997. Criterion seven, indicator 48: a review and discussion.

Unpub. doc. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.12 p.

Warren, S.T. 1998. A framework for understanding property rights and

responsibilities in forested land. In: Meeting in the middle: Proceedings

of the 1997 national convention. Bethesda, MD: Society of American

Foresters: 218-224.
Wiebe, K.D.; Tegene, A.; Kuhn, B. 1996. Partial interests in land: policy

tools for resource use and conservation. Agric. Econ. Rep. 744.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service. 68 p.

Wiebe, K.D.; Tegene, A.; Kuhn, B. 1998. Land tenure, land policy, and

the property rights debate. In: Jacobs, H. M., ed. Who owns America?

Social conflict over property rights. Madison, WI: University of

Wisconsin Press: 168-174.

Zhang, D. 1996. State property rights laws: what, where, and how?

Journal of Forestry 94(4): 10-15.

Zhang, D. 1999. The hurdles of property rights legislation. In: Great

lakes, great forests: Proceedings of 1998 convention. Bethesda, MD:

Society of American Foresters: 262-269.
Appendix

Federal Statutes with Implications for Usufructuary Rights

and Restrictions on Federal Land

Federal statute

Administrative Procedure Act of 1948

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971

Antiquities Act of 1906

Bald Eagle Act of 1940 (as amended)

Clean Air Act of 1955 (as amended)

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (as amended)

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(as amended)

Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended)

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (as amended)

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974

General Mining Law of 1872

Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930

Lacey Act of 1900

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

Mineral Leasing Act, Potassium Leasing Law, Sulfur Act of 1920

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947

Mineral Resources on Weeks Law Lands of 1947

Mining in the Parks Act of 1976

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Forest Management Act of 1976

National Historic Preservation Act of 1976

National Park Service Organic Act of 1916

National Trails System Act of 1968

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1968

Organic Administration Act of 1897

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (as amended)

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

Surface Resources Act of 1955

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

Weeks Act of 1911

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Wilderness Act of 1964

Source: Coggins and others (1993); USDA Forest Service (1993).


The full text of Indicator 49 is as follows: Extent to which

the legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supports

the conservation and sustainable management of forests,

including the extent to which it provides for periodic

forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review

that recognizes the range of forest values, including

coordination with relevant sectors (Montreal Process

Working Group 2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

Forests are affected by a wide variety of physical, economic,

and social influences, many of which originate beyond the

forest community in sectors such as energy, agriculture,

transportation, communication, environment, and government. The sustainability of forests is dependent on the

ability of society to comprehensively evaluate trends and

conditions in these diverse sectors and to subsequently

take responsive actions that will ensure the sustained use,

management, and protection of forest resources and the

communities that depend on them. These actions are typically predicated on well-focused and technically sound

plans, assessments, and policy reviews that are sensitive to

a range of forest values and are coordinated with a variety

of forest-related sectors (Montreal Process Technical

Advisory Committee 2000, Montreal Process Working

Group 2003).

The focus of Indicator 49 is on the legal capacity available

to conduct planning, assessments, and policy reviews.

Therefore it will be useful to compile information about

laws, rules, and responsible agencies that promote the

development of forest plans and the preparation of assessments and periodic policy reviews. These compilations

should document the agencies and organizations involved;

the frequency with which plans, analyses, and reviews are

prepared; the financial and professional resources devoted

to these activities; and their ability to accomplish objectives involving conservation and sustainability. Of special

interest is information describing the capability of agencies, plans, assessments, and reviews to address a range of

forest values and to foster coordination with plans in

related sectors (Montreal Process Technical Advisory

Committee 2000).

Indicator 49 lists various concepts and principles that are

to be addressed. Four of these may be defined as follows:

planning consists of disciplined procedures undertaken to

guide organizations having an interest in forest sustainability (for example, in strategic resource planning, land

use planning, and management planning); assessments are

comprehensive examinations of present and prospective

ecological, economic, or political conditions that are likely

to affect forest sustainability; policy review is the development and examination of options for addressing important

issues involving forest sustainability; and coordination

with relevant sectors is the harmonizing or integration of

plans, assessments, and policy reviews originating from

diverse ecological, economic, and political structures and

conditions important to forest sustainability.

The indicator draws special attention to the legal capacity

to engage in “coordination with relevant sectors.” A State

or nation’s forestry sector may be but one of many sectors

capable of fostering sustainability and conservation of

forests, and there is much potential for coordination in this

area (Ellefson 1985, Greeley 1966). For example, there

can be coordination of project plans, forest sector plans,

and macro or national plans; of plans for different kinds

of forest resources (such as timber, recreation, range, and

wildlife); of forestry and nonforestry plans (such as agriculture plans and mineral plans); of public and private

sector plans (such as those for public timberland investments and private timber processing facilities); and of

forestry and nonforestry plans involving functional

interests (such as timber management plans and general

transportation plans). Identifying the legal capacity that

addresses these numerous interfaces and promotes

coordination among them is a considerable challenge.

Conceptual Background

Planning Activities

Planning is often considered a central component of forestland management. Statutes and administrative directives

governing the use, management, and protection of forests

invariably set forth requirements for the development of

plans and directives that provide the framework within

which managers can operate to accomplish their organizations’ missions. Since private and public interests in the

use, management, and protection of forests are part of

dynamic political and economic systems, plans are subject

to periodic review and revision. Coordination of various

1 Ellefson, Professor, and Hibbard, Research Specialist, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Forest Planning, Assessment, and Policy Review (Indicator 49)

Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard1


types and levels of plans prepared in response to various

local, State, and Federal statutory requirements is an

onerous task. An effective approach to coordinating, and

in some cases reconciling, plan development and implementation in such an environment is not fully developed.

Plans focused on forest resources are highly variable in

their purpose. However, such plans can take the form of a

strategic program plan, which sets general direction toward

a mission or vision and results from a formalized but

modest set of exercises, or can embody the combined

responses of an agency to continuing streams of often

unexpected issues (Office of Technology Assessment 1990).

Examples of the latter are State and Federal agency

actions responding to unexpected judicial and legislative

directives—actions which when combined constitute a de

facto strategic plan. Statewide forest resource plans prepared by lead forestry agencies in State government and

the plans required of the USDA Forest Service by the

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

of 1974 and the Government Performance and Results Act

of 1993 are examples of strategic plans resulting from

more formalized exercises.

Plans can also be very focused in identifying expected outcomes, as in the case of land use and management plans.

Of interest are plans that are specific enough to provide

clear direction for management activities and concrete

enough that success can be measured. They identify potential uses, estimated outputs, and conditions that are desirable and feasible. They explain how management will

affect key sites, produce important outputs, and protect

vital resources and ecosystems. Land use and management

plans tend to be the product of rational planning approaches

that require clearly specified objectives, alternatives, decision criteria, and implementation and monitoring procedures. Plans for each administrative unit of the nation’s

national forests, as prepared by the USDA Forest Service

under authorities set forth by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and plans for each refuge prepared by

the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, as called for by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of

1997, are examples of land use and management plans.

Plans developed to guide the use, management, and protection of forests can emerge from statutes that require

direct and exclusive consideration of forests as well as from

statutes that authorize the development of broader multisector plans. An example of the former is the strategic

planning process called for by the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which requires

the preparation of plans that address a variety of interests

in forests (for example, wildlife, fish, timber, grazing) and

requires interdisciplinary consideration of desired forest

conditions. Some multisector plans focus on a specific

physical resource, such as air or water, that can be affected

by the use and management of forests. Examples of even

more broadly construed multisector plans are those required

of agencies that are responsible for administering the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1987, and

the Clean Air Act of 1990. State governments also develop

multiresource plans that affect forests, plans that are often

developed in response to the Federal laws just identified.

Judgments about the usefulness of plans and planning

processes presumes the existence of standards or measures

of goodness. One obvious source of such standards is the

statutes that authorize the planning activity. For example,

these statutes may require public participation or preparation by interdisciplinary teams. Other commonly advocated

standards for plans or planning processes include legal

sufficiency, ability to resolve conflict, cost-effectiveness,

existence of a foundation of good data and sound analyses,

capability to be implemented on the ground, communication of a clear vision, completion on time, active leadership by administrators, and flexibility to accommodate

unexpected events. These examples illustrate the range of

standards by which the strength and weakness of forest

planning activities may be judged (Bryson 1988, Gray and

Ellefson 1987, Larsen and others 1990, Teeguarden 1990).

Assessment Activities

Assessments are comprehensive examinations of present

and prospective conditions that are likely to affect the use,

management, and protection of forests both now and in the

future. They are often viewed as supportive of plan development, in that plans generally respond to assessment-identified gaps between current and some desired conditions in

the use, management, and protection of forests. Assessments

have traditionally been detailed, comprehensive exercises

that include thorough analysis of data, although movement

is toward assessments that examine broad trends in resource,

economic, and social conditions that a forestry agency

might adapt to or possibly influence (Sample and LeMaster

1995). Some assessments are developed for purposes of

evaluating or monitoring progress toward key goals and

objectives that have been identified in a plan. Examples of

assessments are the renewable resources assessment

required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 and prepared every 10 years, the

critical habitat assessment for threatened and endangered

species required by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966 (amended 1997), and various

statewide resource assessments carried out by the forestry

agencies of State governments. These statewide assessments include the criterion and indicators assessments that

are being prepared by an increasing number of States

(such as Oregon).


Policy and Program Review Activities

Anticipating, evaluating, and developing options for

addressing important forest resource issues is the focus of

policy and program analyses. Issues requiring analysis are

selected on the basis of (for example) their urgency, strategic significance, programmatic importance, geographic

scope, fiscal implications, or the expectation of useful

results from analysis. The principal users of policy analyses

are generally forestry agency executives, although leaders

in other branches of government and in the private sector

often seek the results of policy analysis. As examples,

topics addressed by the policy analysis staff of the USDA

Forest Service include payments to States from national

forest receipts, water resource policy and the management

of forests, and the role of public and private recreation

enterprises. Policy analysis is also carried out by the renewable resources and planning staff of the USDI Bureau of

Land Management, the planning and evaluation staff of the

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Office of Policy,

Economics, and Innovation of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. State government forest agencies also

have capabilities for policy and program analysis (for

example, the Resource Policy Division of the Oregon

Department of Forestry).

Current Legal Capacity

Private Sector Capacity

Many private organizations have the capacity to undertake

policy and program reviews, often doing so as part of their

perception of a private sector mission (not necessarily a

legal requirement). For example, industrial forestry concerns periodically prepare policy reviews of their strategic

position in forest product markets, and reviews of corporate

land ownership strategies. Similarly, private companies

considering long-term investment in timberland often

undertake careful review and analysis of such opportunities (for example, the Hancock Timber Resource Group).

Private organized interest groups also engage in policy

review and analysis that can be used to influence development of public policy toward the use and management of

forests. Such groups (and an example of each group’s

reports) include the Society of American Foresters (“Forest

wildlife-habitat relationships: population and community

responses to forest management” [2002]), the National

Association of State Foresters (“A review of the State and

private forestry deputy area Washington office” [2002]),

the Pinchot Institute for Conservation (“Allocating cooperative forestry funds to States: block grants and alternatives”

[2001]), The Wilderness Society (“National forests: Policies for the future” [1988]), and Sierra Club (“Forest fires:

Beyond the heat and hype” [2002]). Also representing

policy review capacity are special interest group reviews

of National Forest Land Management Plans and critiques

of plans for the sale of timber from public forests.

Private sector capacity for land management planning is

apparent in the development and implementation of management plans for private forests. In 1994, approximately

5 percent of nearly 10 million private landowners were

known to have a written plan for the management of their

forest property (table 1). Nationally, these plans directed

the use and management of forest on nearly 154 million

acres of private land. Thirty-seven percent of the plans

were prepared by a State government employee (service

forester), while landowners (21.7 percent) and consultants

(10.7 percent) were the next most-frequent plan preparers.

Consultants were responsible for plans applied to more

than 25 million acres of private forestland. For 1998, the

USDA Forest Service reported the preparation of nearly

28,000 forest management plans (including forest stewardship plans) that were applied to more than 1.8 million acres

of private forest (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 1999). A national assessment of forest stewardship

plans found that 84 percent of landowners with such plans

had begun to implement them, applying at least one recommended activity, such as thinning of trees (Esseks and

Moulton 2000). In some cases, forest management certification programs require development of a management

plan (for example, certification of forest management

practices by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative of the

American Forest and Paper Association).

The private sector’s capacity to prepare land management

plans is also reflected in the legal requirements of State

forest practice regulatory programs. In some States (for

example, California, Oregon, Washington), private landowners who want to conduct timber harvests must first

prepare timber harvest plans that prescribe forestry practices considered critical to the sustainability of forest

conditions. In the early 1990s, the California Board of

Forestry processed between 1,200 and 1,500 such plans

per year, while the Oregon Department of Forestry and

Washington’s Division of Forest Practices processed

15,000 to 20,000 per year and 10,000 to 15,000 per year,

respectively (Ellefson and others 1995).

Federal Government Capacity

Planning activities—Federal requirements for planning the

use, management, and protection of forests have existed

for many years. Early planning activities were usually

initiated by agency executives who sought to define broad

strategic directions for their agencies. In recent years,

however, Federal laws have required planning that is more

formal and more intensive. Prior to 1974, Congress did not

specifically require any Federal land management agency


to conduct formal systemwide planning (Coggins and others

1993). Today at least 26 Federal statutes require major

agencywide activities involving the preparation of strategic

program plans or land use and management plans, and at

least 7 of these statutes set planning requirements that are

exclusive to forests (table 2). The planning requirements of

these 26 statutes are implemented by more than 10 federal

agencies and result in the production of plans that vary in

geographic scope (national, regional, local) and relevance

to the use and management of forests (Coggins and others

1993, Dolgin and Guilbert 1974, Mansfield 1993, Plater

and others 1998, Schoenbaum and Rosenberg 1996, West

Publishing Company 1997).

Federal statutes requiring plans focused on forests are

nearly evenly split between those that require the preparation of strategic program plans and those that require the

preparation of land use and management plans (table 2).

Some of these statutes require planning that addresses

many forest values (water, wildlife, timber, recreation),

while those statutes that are not specific to forests tend to

have primary concern for a single forest value. Statutes of

the latter kind include the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Although a

number of statutes require that plans be coordinated with

related sectors, in most cases the statutory requirement to

do so is unclear. This lack of statutory clarity is also the

case with regard to requirements for updating plans,

although there are notable exceptions. For example, the

National Forest Management Act of 1976 is very clear in

this respect (plans must be revised at least every 15 years).

In many cases (for example, the Clean Water Act of 1987),

statutes require the preparation of an initial plan and are

silent on subsequent revision or modification of that plan.

Examples of Federal agency strategic and land use and

management plans are as follows:

• USDA Forest Service—The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service is responsible for operating the

National Forest System, for conducting forest resources

research, and for providing technical and financial

assistance to State and private forestry agencies. A

variety of statutes require the USDA Forest Service to

prepare strategic program plans as well as land use and

management plans. An example of the first kind of

statute is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), which requires preparation

of a resources assessment (every 10 years), a resources

program (every 5 years, looking to conditions 45 years

hence), a Presidential statement of policy (to guide

budget formulation), and annual reports on progress

toward implementation of the planning documents

Table 1—Forest management plans prepared by private forest owners, by type of owner

and type of plan preparer (1994)

Owners Area Management plan

preparation Number Proportion Acres Proportion

thousands percent millions percent

Owners with written plan 531.2 5.4 153.6 39.0

Owners without written plan 8,594.1 86.7 226.2 57.5

Unknown status 784.9 7.9 13.6 3.5

Total 9,910.2 100.0 393.4 100.0

Plan prepared by:

Owner 114.8 21.7 16.7 19.0

Consultant 56.5 10.7 25.5 28.9

Industrial forester 20.6 3.9 8.9 10.1

State government employee 196.2 37.1 16.8 19.1

Extension Service 8.9 1.7 0.9 1.0

USDA Natural Resources 47.3 9.0 4.6 5.2

Conservation Service

Other 87.9 16.6 24.0 27.3

Total 532.2 100.7 97.4 110.6

Note: Table totals exceed 100 percent because plans were prepared by more than one type of preparer. Of owners

with a written plan, 528,800 were nonindustrial private owners (88.1 million acres) and 2,400 were industrial owners

(65.5 million acres).

Source: Birch (1996).


Table 2—Federal statutes authorizing planning activities involving forests and forestry, by various planning

characteristics (2001)

Range of Coordination Periodic Major forest

Primary forest with plans for updating ownership

Federal statute requiring some form of type of plan values related forest of plans category

planning activity required addressed sectors required addressed

Planning focus directly and exclusively on

forests and forestry

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 Strategic Yes Yes * All ownerships

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Strategic Yes * Yes All ownerships

Planning Act of 1974

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Strategic Yes Yes * All ownerships

Research Act of 1978

McIntire-Stennis Forest Research Act * Yes * * All ownerships

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 * Yes Yes * Federal

National Forest Management Act of 1978 Management Yes Yes Yes Federal

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 Strategic Yes Yes Yes All ownerships

Planning focus broad, including forests and

forestry

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 Strategic Yes * Yes All ownerships

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 Strategic No * * All ownerships

Clean Air Act of 1990 Strategic Yes * * All ownerships

Clean Water Act of 1987 Strategic No Yes Yes All ownerships

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Management Yes Yes Yes All ownerships

Endangered Species Act of 1973 Management No No * All ownerships

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Management Yes * * All ownerships

Rodenticide Act (as amended 1996)

Federal Land Policy and Management Act Strategic Yes Yes Yes Federal

of 1976

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 Management No * Yes All ownerships

Government Performance and Results Act Strategic Yes Yes Yes All ownerships

of 1993

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Management No * Yes All ownerships

of 1965

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Strategic Yes Yes * All ownerships

National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 Management No * * Federal

National Trails System Act of 1968 Management No Yes * All ownerships

National Wildlife Refuge System Management No Yes Yes Federal

Administration Act of 1966 (1997)

Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 Strategic Yes Yes Yes Private

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Management Yes * * All ownership

Act of 1977

Wilderness Act of 1964 Management No No * Federal

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 Management No Yes * All ownerships

Note: Asterisk indicates statute is not clear on this point.

Source: Plater and others (1998); Schoenbaum and Rosenburg (1996).
	

(Office of Technology Assessment 1992a).2 The process

requires consideration of all forest values, coordination

with other Federal agencies, and cooperation with other

levels of government (especially State governments).

(Since 1993, the Government Performance and Results

Act [GPRA] has preempted strategic planning legislative authorities for most Federal agencies. The program

element of RPA has essentially been subsumed by the

GPRA; the RPA Assessment now provides the context

for the GPRA strategic plan).

The response of the USDA Forest Service to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 is another

example of strategic program planning. Responding to

the act, the 2000 Plan (revised) sets strategic direction

for the agency for a 5-year period, with each year’s

funding being dependent on progress toward accomplishing the goals specified in the plan (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 2000a). Four broad goals are

identified (ensure sustainable ecosystems, provide for

multiple benefits, ensure development and delivery of

information, and ensure organizational effectiveness).

Each of these goals is given operational clarity by more

focused objectives (for example, improve and protect

water conditions, improve knowledge base through

research and monitoring), time frames for accomplishment, and measures of performance. The strategic plan

also sets forth provisions for program evaluations and

coordination of overlapping functions.

The USDA Forest Service is also responsible for land use

and management planning under authorities specified in

the National Forest Management Act of 1976. This act

(which is specific to the national forests) sets forth planning processes and calls for the development of guidelines or rules that focus attention on the availability of

land for resource management, potential levels of

resource use and management, and ways in which a

variety of resource management practices are to be

carried out. The actual planning process involves 10

steps, including identification of potential uses and

estimated outputs, response to issues of public concern,

protection of especially valuable resources and ecosystems, and plan implementation and monitoring (Office

of Technology Assessment 1992b, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 2000b). Plans (identified as

Land Resource Management Plans) are to be revised at

least every 15 years, must comply with related and relevant Federal environmental and resource statutes, and

are to be vertically integrated with other planning levels

in the agency (nationwide: strategic plan; region: regional

guide; national forest: land resource management plan;

and project-level: specific projects). More than 85

national forest plans are to be revised during the period

beginning in 1999 and ending in 2004.

• USDI Bureau of Land Management—The USDI Bureau

of Land Management administers 264 million acres of

Federal public land and the mineral rights underlying

564 million acres of Federal public land. The Bureau of

Land Management has responded to the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 by preparing a

strategic plan. This plan sets forth 5 overall or “blueprint” goals (serve current and future client groups,

restore and maintain health of land, promote collaborative

management, improve business practices, and improve

human resources management), 43 performance goals

(for example, preserve natural and cultural heritage,

establish and implement management standards and

guidelines), and a variety of results to be accomplished

over a 3 to 10-year period (for example, evaluate areas

and resources that may warrant special recognition,

incorporate comprehensive standards for public land

health into existing land use plans). The agency coordinates plan implementation at the national and local

level with 14 other Federal agencies (Williams 1987).

The Bureau of Land Management also engages in land

use and management planning. Although this planning

is guided by an especially wide range of Federal statutes

and Executive orders that in some measure require planning activities and, where so, often require consideration

of forests, the agency’s major land management planning

authority proceeds from the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976.3 This act requires the Bureau

to prepare land use plans that provide management direction for the Nation’s public lands. These plans are an

integral part of a three-tier planning structure within the

agency, namely a national strategic plan (responding to

the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993),

resource management plans, and plans for areas of

critical concern (unique wildlife and special ecosystems).

The resource management plans, of which 108 have

been developed since 1984, address specific resource

2 In addition to the multisector laws that guide the planning of resources

use and management generally, the USDA Forest Service must give

consideration to Federal statutes such as the Alaska National Interest

Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of

1980, Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, Cooperative

Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation

Act of 1977, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Wilderness Act of

1964, National Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964, and Multiple UseSustained Yield Act of 1960.

3 In addition to the more multisector laws that guide the planning of

resource use and management generally, the USDI-Bureau of Land

Management must give consideration to Federal statutes such as the

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, Federal Coal Leasing

Amendments Act of 1976, Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Public

Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, and Wild and Free-Roaming

Horse and Burro Act (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management 2000a).



conflicts, reflect public participation and comment, and

are accompanied by environmental impact statements.

In response to the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976, the USDI Bureau of Land Management

planning process identifies issues and concerns, assesses

information, identifies desired outcomes, and specifies

allowable uses and actions needed to achieve desired outcomes. Statutory limitations on the implementation of

this process include requirements to inventory resource

conditions on public lands, involve the public in plan

development, comply with multiple-use principles, coordinate plan development and implementation with other

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, give

priority designation and protection to areas of critical

environmental concern, comply with applicable pollution control laws, and recognize development rights of

mining claimants (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management 2000a, 2000b). The agency’s

Land Use Planning Handbook requires that special

consideration be given to forests and forestry: planning

must describe healthy forest conditions and the best

management practices that can be applied in order to

accomplish such conditions (U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management 2000b).

• USDI National Park Service—The U.S. Department of

Interior National Park Service is responsible for the

management of 83.6 million acres of public land. Using

authority granted by the National Park Service Organic

Act of 1916 and administrative rules and directives pursuant to the act, it conducts four interrelated planning

processes, namely general management planning

(agencywide mission and goals), park strategic planning

(park-level mission and goals), implementation planning

(agencywide and park-level plans of action), and annual

performance planning (agencywide and park-level measures of progress). The order in which these processes

occur flows from broad-scale general management planning through progressively more specific strategic, implementation, and performance planning (U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service 1998). Major principles guiding the agency’s planning activities include

use of interdisciplinary planning approaches and principles, use of scientific and technical information in

decision making, use of peer review panels to address

conflicts over validity and interpretation of information,

use of alternative dispute resolution processes (internally

and externally), and review and analysis of post-litigation decisions to identify ways of improving future

decisions (U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service 2001).

Although the agency’s planning activity consists mostly

of the production of land use and management plans for

specific park units, an agencywide strategic program

plan has been developed in response to the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (U.S. Department

of the Interior, National Park Service 2000). This plan

focuses on four major goals: preserve park resources,

provide for public enjoyment, strengthen cultural and

recreation resources, and ensure organizational effectiveness. Eleven strategies for accomplishing these goals

are specified and include developing additional partnerships and improving technology and databases. Various

cross-agency issues and suggestions for their resolution

are presented (for example, working with various federal

agencies on ecosystem restoration in south Florida). The

agency also identifies management and data issues to be

dealt with and describes plans for evaluating programs.

• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service—The

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources

Conservation Service is responsible for a wide range of

forest resource programs, all of which require some level

of planning. These planning activities are conducted in

accordance with authorities granted by the Soil and

Water Conservation Act of 1977 and the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993. The former

requires the preparation (every 10 years) of an appraisal

of the Nation’s soil, water, and related resources and the

development (every 10 years) of a soil and water conservation program. These documents are to be consistent

with the findings of resource inventories and assessments,

identification and analysis of alternatives, consultation

and consensus-building processes, and sound principles

of plan implementation and program evaluation. They

are to be transmitted to the U.S. Congress, as are annual

reports (to accompany proposed budgets) of progress in

implementing programs. The agency’s mission statement

highlights the importance of conservation planning; the

agency’s planning is to guide it in developing programs

that encourage comprehensive planning for management

of natural resources on private and other nonfederal

land. This resource management planning is to involve

processes that integrate social, economic, and ecological

resource concerns while also maintaining natural systems

and ecological processes. Only two plans and appraisals

have been made by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service under authorities established by the

Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.

The agency’s planning activities involving forests are

responses to a number of forest and related programs

that have been assigned to the agency for implementation. These planning activities give direction to programs

that provide for natural resource information, community

planning and development, conservation cost-share program assistance, conservation planning and implementation, erosion control and reduction, farmland protection,

fish and wildlife habitat improvement, forest improvement and management, range management, stream restoration, water management, water quality improvement,


wetland restoration and protection, watershed planning,

conservation technical assistance, emergency watershed

protection, and natural resources inventory work. Most

of these functions are carried out in cooperation with

State governments and typically require State-developed

plans prior to their implementation by the agency. Examples are the Forestry Incentives Program, Conservation

Reserve Program, and Stewardship Incentive Program,

all of which are administered in cooperation with the

USDA Forest Service.

The agency also responds to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 by preparing an agencywide strategic program plan (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

2000). The plan identifies 4 major goals (enhance

resource productivity, reduce unintended natural resource

impacts, protect communities from flood and drought,

deliver high-quality services to the public) and 14

specific objectives that give a focus to these goals (for

example, enhance forestland productivity, enhance fish

and wildlife habitats). Coordination of plan development and implementation with other public and private

entities (and especially with State governments) is

common and extensive, and involves cooperation on

matters related to education, research, data collection,

and program delivery. Provisions are made for program

evaluations, including advance (1 year) schedules for

evaluation in the agency’s annual operational plan.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—The Fish and Wildlife

Service is responsible for conserving, protecting, and

enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the

continuing benefit of the Nation (Goble and Freyfogle

2002). The agency is guided by more than 150 Federal

statutes, many of which authorize planning activities

that are directly relevant to the use, management, and

protection of forests. An example is the agency’s role in

administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, a

planning role that has been especially important in

defining the sustainability of wildlife habitats associated

with public and private forests. Among other agencydeveloped plans that have implications for forest

resources are the agency’s comprehensive conservation

plans for wildlife refuges, its information resources management strategic plan, its endangered species habitat

conservation plans, its service-wide strategic and performance plans, and the wildland fire and air quality

national strategic plan.

The agency’s long-range strategic program plan is a

response to the Government Performance and Results

Act of 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001a).

This plan sets forth 4 mission goals (sustain fish and

wildlife populations, conserve habitats through a network

of lands and waters, provide for public use and enjoyment, establish partnerships for managing wildlife

resources) and 14 long-term goals that implement these

mission goals (for example, provide for greater recreational use of wildlife refuges, work with private landowners on eradication of invasive species). Key factors

affecting the ability to accomplish these long-term goals

are specified (for example, extent of collaboration with

partners, extremes in weather and climate conditions),

and coordination with other Federal agencies that have

responsibilities involving wildlife and wildlife habitats

is described (for example, management of the South

Florida Everglades, implementation of the Northwest

Forest Plan, recovery of endangered species). The plan

specifically addresses major wildlife habitat concerns

on land not directly administered by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. For example, it calls for the restoration and establishment by 2005 of 280,000 acres of

wetlands habitat, 524,000 acres of upland habitats, and

4,150 riparian or stream miles of habitat not directly

owned or controlled by the agency.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also engages in land use

and management planning as authorized by the National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as

amended 1997). This activity includes the development

of comprehensive conservation plans for refuges that are

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 2001b). These plans are to provide

a clear and comprehensive statement of desired conditions for each refuge and to provide rationales for management decisions needed to accomplish such conditions,

including the management of forests considered important as wildlife habitat. The process of developing comprehensive conservation plans provides opportunity for

public involvement and for interaction with other Federal

agencies that have responsibilities in relation to the

management of wildlife. Implementation of completed

plans is also to be coordinated with State conservation

agencies, tribal governments, and non-governmental

organizations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

expects to complete comprehensive conservation plans

for 250 planning areas of the National Wildlife Refuge

System by 2006. The plans are to be reviewed and

updated at least every 15 years.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for a wide variety of programs that focus on protecting human health

and safeguarding the natural environment (air, water,

and land) on which life depends. The agency influences

the use, management, and protection of forests through

statutory authorities that focus on water (wastewater,

drinking water, ground water), air (acid rain, global

warming, emissions), hazardous wastes, insecticides,

endangered species, wetlands, and watersheds. Nearly

all of these programs involve planning activities that

have implications for forests. For example, States must
develop implementation plans for meeting air and water

quality standards promulgated by the agency under the

authority of the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Clean

Water Act of 1987. Plans authorized by the latter act

and developed to address nonpoint pollutant sources

originating in forested areas have been especially important in determining what forest practices are applied on

private and public forestland, and how they are applied.

The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a

strategic program plan in response to the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2000). The strategic plan

focuses on 10 goals (clean air, clean and safe water, safe

food, pollution prevention, waste management, global

pollutant reduction, quality environmental information,

sound environmental science, program compliance, and

effective agency management), each of which is further

focused by detailed objectives and performance requirements. The plan’s development and implementation are

coordinated with more than 100 Federal, State, and local

agencies, tribal governments, business and industry

organizations, and environmental and public interest

groups.

The above are examples of Federal agencies that engage

in planning the use, management, and protection of

forests. Other agencies that are so engaged to some

degree are the Council on Environmental Quality (rules

governing administration of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969), Army Corps of Engineers (administration of wetland provisions of the Clean Water Act of

1987), Department of Defense (plans for Department

forestlands), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA forests

and private forests), and the USDI Bureau of Indian

Affairs.

Assessment activities—Federal agency capacity to undertake comprehensive examinations of present and prospective conditions that are likely to affect the use, management,

and protection of forests is significant (table 3). Of the

22 example assessments identified in table 3, two-thirds

address a range of forest values, although often only for a

specific region or land ownership category (for example,

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Assessment, the

Northern Lands Assessment, and the Southern Forest

Assessment). Most assessments are conducted in coordination with other agencies and with different ownerships and

levels of government, although this coordination is often

not clearly stated in statutes or directives. Coordination

can be difficult because assessments involving forests can

have differing objectives (timber assessments versus endangered species assessments, for example) and are often

undertaken by a number of Federal agencies, many of

which do not have forests as their primary responsibility

(Johnson and others 1999). It is also significant that most

Federal assessments are regional or ecosystems based, as

when the area of concern for planning is determined by

scientifically defined, ecologically based geographic

boundaries (for example, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,

Interior Columbia River Basin, Northern Spotted Owl

Forest Ecosystem) (Hardt 1997).

Agency authority for carrying out assessments is set forth

by statutes that call for continuous assessments (monitoring) (as in the case of the acid rain deposition program of

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), periodic

assessments at specified intervals (as with the Renewable

Resources Assessment of the USDA Forest Service), or

intermittent assessments required to address important

issues regarding resource use and management (as with

the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Report of

the USDA Forest Service and cooperating agencies). Intermittent assessments frequently have a specific geographic

focus, usually a multi-State region. Of the 22 assessments

identified in table 3, 17 address conditions on all forest

ownerships. However, assessments have often focused on

wildlife refuges, national forests, national parks, and

Indian forestlands.

Assessments are frequently undertaken in concert with the

development of strategic program plans or land use and

management plans (for example, the Soil and Water

Appraisal and the Conservation Program of the USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service). Information about

the conditions and capabilities of resources as provided

by assessments has proven to be especially useful in the

development of such plans. Although assessments have

long been useful as a means of evaluating trends in the use

and condition of resources, they are increasingly being

used to evaluate progress toward key goals and objectives

that are specified in agency plans. They have become

especially important sources of information for those

making judgments about progress toward goals specified

in the agency strategic program plans required by the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(Sample and Le Master 1995).

Policy and program review activities—Federal agency

capacity for review and analysis of policy and program

initiatives focused on forest resource matters is probably

quite substantial. Unfortunately, comprehensive documentation (staff levels, budgets, responsibilities) of this capacity does not exist. A review of agency staff directories

and organizational charts reveals that policy and program

reviews are undertaken at virtually all levels within agencies, namely the departmental level (USDA Office of

Budget and Program Analysis), agency level (Policy

Analysis Staff, USDA Forest Service), mid-level within

agencies (USDA Forest Service regional office analysts

and planners), and field or operational levels (USDA Forest
Table 3—Federal environmental and natural resource assessments, by type, administering agency, and source of

authority (2001)

Authority for

Assessment type and title Principal administering agency undertaking assessment

Continuous

National acid precipitation assessments U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act of 1990

Periodic (specified intervals)

Forest inventory and analysis USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Research Act of 1978

Land use and condition inventory USDI Bureau of Land Management Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976

Soil and water resource appraisal USDA Natural Resources Conservation Soil and Water Conservation Act

Service of 1977

Air pollutant assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act of 1990

Water quality assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act of 1987

Renewable resources assessment USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974

Indian forestland assessment USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Forest Resources

Management Act of 1990

Regional water and related resources Water Resources Council Water Resource Planning Act

assessment of 1965

National forest resource assessment USDA Forest Service National Forest Management Act

of 1978

Wildlife refuge resource assessment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966

National park resource assessment USDI National Park Service National Park Service Organic Act

of 1916

National biological survey USDI National Biological Service Various Federal statutes

Intermittent (determined by need)

Environmental impact statements Council on Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy Act

and Proposing Agency of 1969

Global climate change effects U.S. Department of Agriculture Global Climate Change Prevention

assessment Act of 1990

Endangered species review U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Endangered Species Act of 1973

others

Forest ecosystem management USDA Forest Service and others National Forest Management Act

assessment report of 1978 and others

Northern forestlands assessment Northern Forest Lands Council and Federal and State statutes

USDA Forest Service

Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem Multiple Federal agencies Various Federal statutes

assessment

Sierra Nevada ecosystem assessment USDA Forest Service Various Federal statutes

Regional impact assessment of climate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act of 1990

change

Southern forest resource assessment USDA Forest Service Various Federal statutes


Service national forest analysts and planners). Analysis

and review capacity also exists within the research units

of agencies (USDA Forest Service Resource Valuation and

Use Research unit) and agency budget development and

coordination units (Division of Budget, Office of Budget,

Planning, and Human Services of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service). Further complicating judgment about

policy and program review capacity is the large number of

agencies that carry out reviews of broad-based resource or

environmental programs that are not solely focused on

(but include) forest programs (Oversight and Evaluation

Staff of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service).

It appears that there are 200 to 300 policy and program

analysts within Federal agencies responsible for programs

affecting forests. In the Washington, DC Office of the

USDA Forest Service, more than 25 persons have the title

of policy analyst, program analyst, or program planner. A

survey of four policy and program review units in three

different agencies indicates that policy review activity is

being focused on a wide range of issues and coordination

responsibilities (table 4).

State Government Capacity

Planning activities—State governments have engaged in

some form of forest planning activity since the early 1900s.

However, the character of these activities has changed

dramatically over the years, as have the number and type

of State government organizations involved. Early planning efforts were focused largely on protecting forests

from fire, insects, and diseases and on promoting investments in timber production as a forest use. By the mid1980s, State-initiated forest planning activities ranged

from the development of comprehensive statewide forest

resource plans to the preparation of plans required by

forest practice regulatory programs, and from broad water

quality plans that influence forests to plans for forestbased rural economic development. Also, forest resource

planning activity, which previously had been largely a

responsibility of lead forestry agencies of States, had by

2000 become the province of many units of State government. In 2000, each State reportedly had 8 to 10 executive-branch units of State government engaged in some

form of planning activity focused on forests (Ellefson and

others 2002). Also significant has been the increasingly

aggressive posture of Federal agencies in requiring (or

encouraging by means of fiscal incentives) the development

of multisector plans to address possible impacts of forestry

activities on water, air, wildlife, and other resources (such

as those required by the Clean Water Act of 1987 and the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972). The Cooperative

Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 also has done much to

encourage lead forestry agencies of State governments to

develop plans that focus on statewide forest resource

conditions.

State government planning activities focused on forests

vary greatly in scope and magnitude. States operate within

different planning contexts (for example, large State budgets

versus small State budgets, large forest area versus small

forest area), undertake different planning approaches

(issue driven, goal driven, iterative planning), and pursue

different goals, objectives, and strategies (Gray and

Ellefson 1987). Some States (for example, Minnesota)

seek to develop broad strategic plans that consist of a

vision, obstacles to attainment of the vison, and a plan for

dealing with such obstacles, while others tend to focus on

the specifics of land use and management, especially for

the forestland that is directly owned and managed by State

governments. In yet other States, the aggregate of forest

plans prepared by private forest owners as requisites for

participation in cost-share programs (such as the Forestry

Incentives Program), dedicated easement programs (such

as the Forest Legacy Program), or a State’s forest practice

regulatory program (where rules guide plan preparation)

become, in a sense, overall plans for the privately owned

forests in those States. Some States (for example, Vermont,

Florida, Maine, and Oregon) have seen fit to exert control

over land development generally by means of statutes

directed at growth management. In these States, forests are

thus subject to planning in the sense that certain activities

cannot occur within designated forest areas and in the

sense that conversion of forests to nonforest uses may be

prohibited (Wickersham 1994).

Statewide forest resource planning programs were actively

underway in 47 States in 1982 (McCann and Ellefson 1982).

In 1985, the Council of State Governments determined

that 29 states had completed first-generation plans and

were in the process of implementing them (Cole 1985). In

2003, 45 of the 50 States were determined to be involved

in a variety of forest resource planning processes, such as

State-administered forest planning (39 States), comprehensive statewide forest resource planning (23 States), agency

operational planning (38 States), issue- and problemoriented planning (37 States), and land use allocation planning (10 States). Each State spent, on average, $433,000 in

2003 to support forest resource planning activities, although

the majority of States spent less than $250,000 (19 States

invested less than $50,000, and 11 States more than $1

million). Planning activities required the professional

talent of an average of 4.4 full-time equivalent staff per

State. Half of the States regularly seek the public’s perspective during the development of comprehensive statewide

plans. The primary reasons for undertaking planning activities were to secure a clearer understanding of agency

long-term directions and to improve the quality of management and administrative structures (Kilgore and Salk 2003).


Table 4—Federal agency units with policy and program review and evaluation responsibilities, by unit name, mission, staff, and exampleanalyses (2001)

Agency policy analysis Staffing levels

and review unit Mission or responsibilities and assignments Example reviews and analyses

Policy Analysis Staff, Bring existing or emerging policy questions Nine policy analysts Evaluation of State payments from nationalPrograms and Legislation, to the attention of agency leadership and and two support staff forest receipts; role of public and privateUSDA Forest Service provide quality analysis of assigned policy recreation enterprises; analysis of water

questions and program evaluations in a timely resource policy and the management of

and objective manner. Coordinate policy forests; assessment of policy options foranalyses with appropriate parties within and Forest Service participation in forestoutside the government, including analyses products certification; and evaluation ofof agencywide direction and standards for agency funding history, including spendingeconomic efficiency evaluation and trends and nonappropriated funding.economic impact assessment.

Office of Policy, Economics, Support agency’s mission through Staff assigned to Development of guidelines for preparingand Innovation, U.S. economic analysis and promotion of four major offices economic analyses, assessment of U.S.Environmental Protection innovation needed to achieve better, or centers experiences with economic incentives forAgency more cost-effective environmental and protecting the environment, and review of

public health protection. options for public involvement in the

granting of environmental permits.

Planning and Evaluation Provide counsel, coordination, education, Ten policy analysts Evaluation of agency policy options (forStaff, Division of Policy and and liaison services to the agency and in DPDM, plus Director’s Orders) for ozone-depletingDirectives Management serve as coordinating point for internal support staff substances phaseout plan, applicability of(DPDM), and Division of and external customers, including the the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to FederalEconomics, U.S. Fish and public and other governmental bodies agencies, and development of options for theWildlife Service requiring assistance. mission, goals, and purposes of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

Oversight and Evaluation Conduct activities to assess quality, About 30 policy and Develop rational approaches to agencyStaff, Division of Operations accountability, effectiveness, and related program responsibilities regarding the NationalManagement and Oversight, consistency in the delivery of analysts, plus Environmental Policy Act, assess field staffOffice of Strategic Planning conservation assistance as defined by support staff prepared designs, plans, and specificationsand Accountability, USDA laws, executive orders, rules, regulations, for installation of site-specific practices, andNatural Resources Conserva- and policy so as to improve the use and evaluate these for consistency with (1) thetion Service (also Division of management of natural resources. agency’s mission and strategic plan, and (2)Budget Planning and Analysis with the products and services developed byand Division of Strategic cooperating institutes, centers, andPerformance Planning). collaborating scientists.


Statewide forest plans have been prepared by nearly all

States during the last 20 years (table 5). However, many

States have failed to update plans they prepared in the

1980s (for example, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New

Jersey, and Ohio), while others (for example, Colorado,

Iowa, Vermont, and Wisconsin) have proceeded to revise

their existing plan or substitute a similar planning document or group of planning documents. Those States that

have discarded the notion of a traditional statewide forest

plan have focused their planning efforts on: specific forest

areas or ownerships (for example, Indiana’s Strategy for

State Forest Land Properties, Alaska’s Haines and Tanana

Valley State forest plans, Washington’s State land plan);

more inclusive natural resource plans prepared by more

broadly charged natural resource agencies (for example,

Illinois Department of Conservation Strategic Plan); strategic focus involving all forest ownerships and management

activities (for example, Minnesota’s Forest Resources

Council’s Vision, Goals, and Actions for Minnesota’s

Forests, and Kansas and Nebraska’s sets of operational or

program plans, which include plans for fire, stewardship,

and urban and community forestry); plans structured

according to criteria and indicators of forest sustainability

(for example, Oregon’s First Approximation Report, and

Hawaii’s Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest

Management in Hawaii); agency or governing boards’

adopted policy directive documents (California’s Board of

Forestry’s Policy Document); and plans for specific forest

Table 5—Status of State government-initiated statewide forest resource plans, by State (2001)

Statewide Most recent Statewide Most recent

forest version or forest version or

Region resource anticipated Region resource anticipated

and State plan update and State plan update

North South (cont.)

Connecticut Yes 1985 Louisiana Yes 1984

Delaware Yes 2000 Mississippi Yes 1982

Illinois Yes 1999 North Carolina Yes 1987

Indiana Yes 1981 Oklahoma Yes 1985

Iowa Yes 1995 South Carolina Yes *

Maine Yes 1985 Tennessee Yes 1985

Maryland Yes 1988 Texas Yes 1981

Massachusetts Yes 1985 Virginia Yes 1987

Michigan Yes 1983

Minnesota Yes 1991 West

Missouri Yes 1991 Alaska Yes 1986

New Hampshire Yes 1996 Arizona Yes 2001

New Jersey Yes 1983 California Yes 1988

New York Yes 1985 Colorado Yes 1998

Ohio Yes 1983 Hawaii Yes 1983

Pennsylvania Yes 1997 Idaho Yes *

Rhode Island Yes 1984 Kansas Yes 1983

Vermont Yes 2000 Montana Yes 1996

West Virginia Yes 2000 Nebraska Yes 1983

Wisconsin Yes 2001 Nevada Yes 1982

New Mexico Yes 1988

South North Dakota Yes 2001

Alabama Yes 1988 Oregon Yes 2000

Arkansas Yes 1984 South Dakota Yes 1987

Florida Yes 1983 Utah Yes 1981

Georgia Yes 1985 Washington Yes 1985

Kentucky Yes 1983 Wyoming Yes 1985

Note: As alternatives to statewide forest plans, many States have seen fit to develop plans for specific areas, regions, or landowner classes or have adopted

policy statements and broader agency plans to guide State direction on forest use, management, and protection. Therefore, many statewide forest plans have

not been updated in recent years. Asterisk indicates information not available.

Source: Carpenter (2002); Kilgore and Salk (2003); McCann and Ellefson (1982); and responses to inquiries made of Federal and State agencies.


management activities (for example, California’s Fire

Plan, Hawaii’s Watershed Protection Plan).

Nationwide reviews of the effectiveness of State forest

resource planning programs were undertaken in 1987 and

in 2003 (Gray and Ellefson 1987, Kilgore and Salk 2003).

The reviews showed that all States had statutory authority

to undertake forest planning; that administering agencies

and various client groups (for example, legislators, forest

industries, environmental groups, and State government

budget directors) supported planning; and that the strength

of this support increased as planning progressed. Most of

these developments were expedited by and consistent with

the USDA Forest Service’s planning program goals for

State governments. Under authorities set forth by the

Cooperative Forest Management Act of 1978, the USDA

Forest Service sought to have statewide forest plans become

the principal guiding documents for State forestry agencies

on matters involving long-range direction, operational

objectives and targets, budget development, and balance

and coordination of diverse forestry programs (U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1980). Among

the specifically identified benefits of planning were better

understanding of the condition of and major trends in forest

resources, greater sense of agency mission and long-term

program direction, development of more creative strategies

to address important issues, increased coordination among

disparate programs, more program and investment accountability, and increased political support for the forestry

programs of State government.

Assessment activities—State governments have the capacity and statutory authority to undertake comprehensive

assessments of conditions affecting the use, management,

and protection of forests. This capacity can be expressed

in the form of one-time assessments of important issues or

ongoing assessments of resource, economic, or social

conditions affecting forests. Although no systematic and

comprehensive review of assessment programs has been

implemented by States, the number of such programs is

probably in the hundreds. Examples of recent assessments

focused on important issues are those involving proposed

expansions of chip or particleboard industries. At least

three States have produced comprehensive analyses and

recommendations concerning resource and economic

conditions relative to these industries: Missouri (Chip Mill

Report to the Governor of Missouri, Governor’s Advisory

Committee on Chip Mills in 2000); North Carolina (Economic and Ecological Impacts of Wood Chip Production

in North Carolina, Report of the Southern Center for

Sustainable Forests in 2000); and Minnesota (Generic

Environmental Impact Statement on Timber Harvesting

and Forest Management, Minnesota Environmental Quality

Board in 1992). Other examples of State assessment capacity are Washington’s Natural Heritage Program Geographic

Information System (rare plant species and endangered

ecosystems), the Vermont Geographic Information System

(rare, threatened, and endangered species), the Pennsylvania

Biological Survey (status of plants and animals), the

Virginia Forest Resource Assessment (implications of population growth and land use changes for forest resources),

the Illinois Critical Trends Assessment (statewide and

regional environmental conditions), the Missouri Resource

Assessment Partnership (development and dissemination

of high-quality natural resource information), the Arizona

Land Resource Information System (statewide multipurpose spatial database of resource extent and conditions),

and the California Fire and Resource Assessment Program

(amount, extent, and condition of forests and rangelands).

Many of these State assessments focus on large ecosystembounded regions within a State.

State governments also have the capacity to undertake

assessments as part of efforts to understand the environmental consequences of certain proposed actions (table 6).

State authority to prepare environmental impact statements

is typically set forth in statutes, executive orders, or

administrative regulations. Sixty percent of States had

established these authorities by the early 1980s (Fisher

and Phillips 1983). In California, government actions and

some private actions may be assessed. In Kentucky, only

certain types of development (power plant siting) may be

assessed. Minnesota’s authority can apply to broad geographic areas (generic environmental impact statements).

Many of the environmental impact assessments conducted

in connection with environmental impact statement processes have a focus on forest conditions (for example,

Minnesota’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement on

Timber Harvesting and Management). Unfortunately, no

nationwide review of the application of such laws in

relation to forest management has been undertaken.

Policy and program review activities—State agencies

often have the capacity to undertake reviews of important

forest resource issues or programs. However, there is little

information on the extent and focus of such capacity at the

State level. The forest resource policy and program review

function is seldom assigned to an individual unit within

State government; the function is more commonly spread

among several subunits of an agency (for example, fire

management, resource management), combined with

administrative functions involving personnel, budgeting,

legal reviews, and legislative liaison activities, or subsumed

by a policy and program unit at a higher organizational

level. Approximately 15 States have cabinet or subcabinetlevel planning or policy and program review units, and

these often have some responsibility to review forest

resource programs administered by lower-level forest

resource units or divisions (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002).

Examples of cabinet and subcabinet units are the Division


of Environmental Planning and Management of the

California State Lands Commission; Office of Planning

and Assessment, Indiana Department of Environmental

Management; Office of Planning and Development,

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; and

Office of Strategic Planning and Policy, Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management. Policy review

units specifically identified as part of a State’s lead forestry

agency are very few. They include the Fire and Resource

Assessment Unit (23 employees) of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which, in addition to

assessing forests and rangelands, also identifies and

analyzes alternative management and policy guidelines;

and the Division of Resource Policy, Oregon Department

of Forestry, which is responsible for program evaluation,

resource planning, public affairs, and legislative

coordination.

Local and Regional Government Capacity

Local and regional governmental jurisdictions are known

to engage in planning, assessment, and policy and program

review activities. Unfortunately, no comprehensive assessment of these capacities has been carried out. Forest planning and related activities are initiated by local governments

where this is justified by the extent and importance of

Table 6—State environmental impact statement requirements, by State and type of authority

(1980)

State and type of authority Authority

Statutory Authority

California California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

Connecticut Connecticut Environmental Policy Act of 1973

Hawaii Hawaii Session Laws of 1974, Chapter 343

Indiana Indiana Public Law 98, 1972

Maryland Maryland Environmental Policy Act of 1973

Massachusetts Massachusetts General Laws of 1977, Chapter 747

Minnesota Minnesota Environmental Policy Act of 1973

Montana Montana Environmental Policy Act of 1971

New York New York Environmental Quality Review Act of 1976

North Carolina North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971

South Dakota South Dakota Environmental Policy Act of 1974

Virginia Virginia Environmental Policy Act of 1973

Washington Washington Environmental Policy Act of 1971

Wisconsin Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act of 1971

Executive Order Authority

Michigan Michigan Executive Directive Number Four, May 1974

New Jersey New Jersey Executive Order Number 53, October 1973

Utah State of Utah Executive Order, August 27, 1974

Special or Limited Rule Authority

Arizona Arizona Game and Fish Commission Policy of July 2, 1971

Delaware Delaware Coastal Zone Act of 1973;

Delaware Wetlands Law of 1973

Kentucky Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 278.179, April 1979

(relating to power plants)

Mississippi Mississippi Code of 1972 Title 49 Chapter 27

(relating to wetlands)

Nevada Nevada Laws of 1971, Chapter 311

New Jersey New Jersey Coastal Area Facility Review Act of 1974-1975;

New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1974-1975

Rhode Island Rhode Island Environmental Rights Act of 1978

Source: Council on Environmental Quality (1980).
	

forests within those jurisdictions. States that are known to

have local governments with planning capabilities are

California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, and

Wisconsin. Some States have regional authorities that conduct planning relevant to forests (such authorities include

California’s Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Coastal

Commission). In 2000, more than 400 small-scale local

government watershed districts were identified in the

western United States (three times the 1995 total) (Natural

Resources Law Center 1998, 2000). These districts often

direct planning attention to forested watersheds.

Summary of Conditions

Forestry and related government agencies in the United

States have a long history of engaging in forest planning

and assessment activities and of undertaking periodic

reviews of forest resource policies and programs. In light

of the background and current conditions presented above,

the following summary observations may be made about

the identification and measurement of legal capacities to

carry out such activities:

• Forest resource agencies at all levels engage in some

form of planning, assessment, and policy review activities. In general, there appears to be ample statutory and

administrative authority to conduct these activities,

although the intensity with which these authorities are

applied varies widely within and between different

levels of government. Whether or not this legal capacity

is actually being translated into meaningful plans and

their subsequent implementation is largely unknown.

• Planning activities respond to statutes (or administrative

directives) that require direct and exclusive consideration of forests, and to statutes that require development

of broad multisector plans (for air, water, or wildlife), of

which plans for forests are but one part. Multi-sector

plans appear to fragment responsibility for administration of forest activities rather than integrate forest values.

• Agencies of many types and with many different responsibilities for forests engage in planning, assessment, and

policy review activities. In only a limited number of

cases is there evidence of concerted and effective effort

to coordinate these activities within and between

governments.

• Agencies produce strategic program plans and land use

and management plans. In some cases, these plans are

aggregations of individual plans and assessments

prepared for specific individual forest ownerships or

specific geographic areas. This is often true of statewide

plans prepared under the authorities of State governments.

• Some agencies, especially State government agencies,

appear to be tending away from the development of

statewide strategic program plans. Statewide forest

resource plans of State governments are frequently very

much out of date, and are often being replaced by

regional or issue-oriented plans and by criteria and

indicator-driven plans.

• Although some agencies separate planning, assessment,

and policy review functions organizationally, these

functions are usually combined as a single activity

assigned to a single administrative unit. Most States

appear to have a very limited policy analysis and review

capacity, at least in the sense of a specific administrative

unit assigned exclusive responsibility for such a function.

• Investments in planning, assessment, and policy review

activities involving forests are highly variable in amount

and regularity. They are determined by the importance

of the forests being managed by an agency and by the

willingness of agency leadership to promote the importance and usefulness of planning, assessment, and

policy review activities.

• Many agencies employ advanced methods, high investment levels, and qualified professionals in their conduct

of planning, assessment, and policy review activities. In

general, Federal agencies are more sophisticated in this

regard than are State, regional, or local government

agencies.

• Assessment activities are very often one-time efforts

that respond to major issues involving controversy over

proposed resource development or management. However, some assessment activities have become monitoring programs that are conducted on a continuous basis

(air quality monitoring) or at periodic intervals (forest

inventory and analysis).

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues and

trends in forest planning, assessment, and policy review

authority and capacity. Examples of this literature (from

which the following issues and trends are drawn) are:

Bryson 1988, Hardt 1997, Sample and Le Master 1995,

and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1990

and 2002.

• Agencies are increasingly seeking the flexibility necessary to anticipate and take advantage of important

opportunities represented by forests and are more and

more inclined to focus forest planning processes on

these opportunities. This change in emphasis is making

planning less technical in its emphasis and more focused

on the preferences that flow from pubic debate and

discussion.

• Individuals and organizations whose interests are

affected by forest resource programs are increasingly

involved (through various collaborative processes) in the



development of forest plans and the conduct of assessments and policy reviews. The general public has a

growing expectation that it will be involved in government forest planning and related activities.

• Legal and administrative authorities for conducting planning, assessments, and policy activities are increasingly

fragmented (and often conflicting) as are the agencies

responsible for conducting such activities. Coordination

of these activities is important but difficult. The diversity in authorities and agencies often results from the

need to meet the demands of many different and often

competing client groups.

• Planning, assessment, and policy analysis have become

more complex, costly, time-consuming, and, in some

cases, even redundant. The desire to address all management uncertainties with intensive information gathering

and analysis is of growing concern.

• The scope of forest plans and assessments is increasingly defined by scientifically determined, ecologically

based geographic boundaries or the political boundaries

of multistate regions. This reflects an interest in ensuring

the physical sustainability of large forested areas.

• Criteria and indicator approaches are increasingly becoming an organizing pattern for the development of forest

plans and the conduct of assessments and policy reviews.

Such approaches provide a structure to guide program

direction and accountability and provide direction for

the gathering of information and its subsequent

management.

• Standardized procedures for implementing forest plans

and the subsequent monitoring of accomplishment of

plan goals and objectives are becoming increasingly

common, especially procedures for formally linking

plans and the budgetary and fiscal requirements to implement them. This development is largely a response to

public skepticism about government and an interest in

greater accountability of government generally.

• Access to information, and the capacity to manage and

analyze information, are becoming increasingly important, but they are often insufficient in amount, quality,

and timing. Increasingly, information gathering is

regarded as directly supporting efforts to deal with issues

and policy problems. This latter trend is a response to

cost concerns as well as to the need for information that

will serve a wider variety of purposes (planning, monitoring, public relations, policy development).

Information Adequacy

Specification

The variables or combination of variables that can be used

to describe legal capacity to carry out planning, assessment, and policy review activities are numerous. However,

determining exactly what information to gather, analyze,

and present when making such an assemblage is difficult.

In part, this difficulty arises because the language used to

describe planning, assessment, and policy analysis activities is often unclear, and because the differences between

these activities are often blurry. Even if definition and relationship issues are addressed, concerns about information

adequacy continue to arise.

The National Association of State Foresters has assessed

the availability and quality of State forestry agency information about the legal setting for planning, assessment,

and policy reviews involving forests (National Association

of State Foresters 1999). The association reported that 3

States have abundant information concerning legal capacity for planning and related activities, 12 have sufficient

information, and the remainder have very little or no information to describe such activities. Five States reported

that their planning and assessment capacity was excellent,

12 that it was adequate, and 3 that it was poor.

Questions about information needs in the area of legal

capacity for planning, resource assessment, and policy

review are as follows:

Extent of activity information—Information about the

legal capacity to plan, assess, and carry out policy analyses activities at various levels of government has not been

assembled in any systematic and comprehensive sense.

What are the requirements for conducting such activities?

Who is responsible for conducting them? Are there different requirements at different levels of government? Is there

consistency in the requirements between these different

levels? Are there legal and constitutional conflicts between

governments? What is the status of local planning and

zoning initiatives? To what extent do these activities occur

in the private sector?

Coordination information—Information about legal

requirements to coordinate planning, assessment, and

policy analysis activities among and between various levels

of government has not been assembled. What coordination

is required? Do existing legal requirements allow for

cross-sectoral, coordinated planning and policy review?

Do they ensure that the cumulative results of local and

regional planning will be consistent with national plans

and vice versa? Do they allow incorporation of ad hoc

planning activities occurring at various times and undertaken by various levels of government?


Procedure and specification information—Information

about how planning, assessment, and policy review activities are to be undertaken has not been assembled. Do

current statutory requirements prescribe procedures for

planning, assessment, and policy review? Are these requirements detailed and rigid, or do they serve as a flexible

framework for decisionmaking and action? Is the full

intent of the existing laws that address planning, assessment, and policy review activities expressed in current

regulations and practices? Do national planning requirements allow for regional and subregional planning? Do

requirements specify the need for planning leadership?

Do they give guidance to such leadership?

Cumulative effect information—Information about legal

requirements for effective linkages between national,

regional, and subregional planning, assessment, and policy

analysis has not been gathered. How is such coordination

encouraged? When aggregated, are accumulated results

consistent with principles of sustainable forest management?

Investment and incentive information—Information

about resources devoted to planning, assessments, and

policy analysis has not been assembled. What is the magnitude of investments in planning, assessment, and policy

review activities? Are there legal and administrative processes for allocating resources to these activities and are

they sufficient? Are there legal or fiscal provisions for

encouraging these activities, and especially for encouraging cross-sectoral planning?

Effectiveness information—Information about the effectiveness of planning, assessment, and policy review activities has not been compiled except in very limited cases.

Are there legal or administrative requirements to determine

the efficiency and effectiveness of these activities? What

are appropriate measures of success? Are there alternative

and more effective approaches to planning, assessment,

and policy review?

Monitoring information—Information about monitoring

that is legally required as part of planning, assessment, and

policy analysis has not been compiled systematically. Are

there requirements to monitor the results of these activities

and to adapt these activities to changing circumstances?

This review indicates that considerable uncertainty exists

about the legal capacity of governments to carry out planning, assessment, and policy review activities in connection

with management for forest sustainability. No organization

or institution has been assigned special responsibility for

gathering and preparing timely reports on the status of

these activities. Furthermore, the planning and analysis

efforts of private forest landowners (industrial, nonindustrial, Indian, nonprofit) and non-Federal public owners

have largely been overlooked, and these non-Federal forest

landowners control nearly two-thirds of the Nation’s

forestland.

Recommendations

Our ability to determine the extent to which the legal framework provides for forest-related planning, assessment, and

policy review specified in Indicator 49 is limited by a lack

of information in various areas. The information voids that

need to be addressed are considerable. The following

actions seem appropriate:

Comprehensive review of capacity—Conduct a comprehensive review of current legal directives that give authority, direction, and resources to forest resource planning,

assessment, and policy analysis and review activities. This

review should address the information deficiencies described above and should cover legal directives at Federal,

State, and local levels of government. In addition, a systematic review of private-sector capability to carry out these

activities should be initiated.

Responsibility for conducting review—Assign responsibility for conducting continuous reviews of planning,

assessment, and policy analysis and review capacities to a

specific existing or new administrative unit of a Federal

agency (for example, the USDA Forest Service’s State

and Private Forestry unit, or its Policy Analysis unit), to a

college or university, or to a nonprofit organization engaged

in policy review activities (for example, Resources for the

Future, Inc., or the Pinchot Institute for Conservation).

The organization chosen should have a proven track record

in conducting analyses and reviews of programs at various

levels of government and in the private sector.

Devote resources to review—Invest sufficient resources in

the review so that the review provides the type and quantity of information necessary to dramatically improve our

understanding of abilities to plan, assess, and analyze

conditions important to sustainable forestry.

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

Indicator 49 suffers from unclear definition of the activities

specified, namely forest-related planning, assessment, and

policy review. Each of these words or phrases supposedly

embodies an agreed-to set of concepts and principles, but

this is not always the case. Further compounding the specification problem is that new words or phrases are continually being suggested (for example, policy planning), often

without reference to well-established or newly developed

principles or concepts. The meaning of “range of forest


values” and “coordination with relevant sectors” is unclear

also. The indicator would benefit from rewording: we

suggest “. . . provides for periodic planning, assessment,

and policy reviews that embrace various forest values, and

fosters the coordination of forest plans and assessments

with other sectors.”

Relationship to Other Indicators

Indicators 49 and 54 are closely related. Indicator 49

focuses on legal capacity and Indicator 54 focuses on

institutional capacity, but institutional and legal capacities

overlap extensively. In fact, institutional capacity can be

viewed as the framework supporting legal authorities. For

purposes of assessing information resources, Indicators 49

and 54 should probably be merged and renamed as

suggested above.

Indicator 49 overlaps other indicators also, particularly as

they relate to concepts involving laws and values, public

participation, funding, and planning. There is potential for

overlap problems in Indicator 49’s relationship to Indicators

38 (investment in forests), 39 (investment in research),

50 (public participation), 52 (special values), 53 (public

involvement and education), 60 (information and data),

61 (forest inventories), 62 (foreign country monitoring),

64 (value integrative methods), 65 (new technologies), and

66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States: 1994.

Resour. Bull. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Bryson, J.M. 1988. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 311 p.

Carpenter, C.A. 2002. Conservation and management of forests in the

northern United States: a first approximation report. Durham, NH: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Area, State and

Private Forestry. [Not paged].

Coggins, G.C.; Wilkenson, C.F.; Leshy, J.D. 1993. Federal public land

and resources law. Westbury, NY: Foundation Press. 1,092 p.

Cole, L.A. 1985. Forest resource planning: state of the States. Lexington,

KY: Council of State Governments. [Not paged].

Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Environmental quality: 1979.

Annual report to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 365 p.

Dolgin, E.L.; Guilbert, T.G.P. 1974. Federal environmental law. St. Paul,

MN: West Publishing. 1,600 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 1985. Forest sector plans: coordination with nonforestry

interests and national plans for development. In: Proceedings, ninth

World Forestry Congress (Mexico City, Mexico). Rome, Italy: U.N.

Food and Agriculture Organization, Department of Forestry: 220-240.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of private

forest practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: an

assessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape of

State governments. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department

of Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of State

agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry. 100(6):35-42.

Esseks, J.D.; Moulton, R.J. 2000. Evaluating the forest stewardship program through a national survey of participating forest landowners. De

Kalb, IL: Northern Illinois University, Center for Government Studies.

113 p.

Fisher, B.D.; Phillips, M.J. 1983. Legal environment of business. St. Paul,

MN: West Publishing. 893 p.

Goble, D.D.; Freyfogle, E.T. 2002. Federal wildlife statutes. New York,

NY: Foundation Press. 664 p.

Gray, G.J.; Ellefson, P.V. 1987. Statewide forest resource planning programs: an evaluation of program administration and effectiveness. Sta.

Bull. 582-1987. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment

Station. 149 p.

Greeley, A.W. 1966. Integration of forest development plans and national

development plans: administration, operational problems, and possible

solutions. In: Proceedings, Sixth World Forestry Congress. Rome, Italy:

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Department of Forestry. [Not

paged].

Hardt, S.W. 1997. Federal land-use planning and its impact on resource

management decisions. In: Public land law II. Denver, CO: Rocky

Mountain Mineral Law Foundation: 4-1 to 4-55.

Johnson, K.N.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M.; Greene, S. 1999. Bioregional

assessments: science at the crossroads of management policy. Covelo,

CA: Island Press. 398 p.

Kilgore, M.A.; Salk, R. 2003. An assessment of State forest resources

planning in the Northeast United States. Staff Pap. 170. St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 70 p.

Larsen, G.; Holden, A.; Kapaldo, D. [and others]. 1990. Synthesis of the

critique of land management planning. FS-452. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Vol. 1. 24 p.

Mansfield, M.E. 1993. A primer of public land law. Washington Law

Review. 68(4):801-857.

McCann, B.D.; Ellefson, P.V. 1982. Organizational patterns and administrative procedures for State forest resources planning. Staff Pap. 31. St.

Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.

63 p.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate

and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2002].


National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation

assessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date

accessed: June 2001].

Natural Resources Law Center. 1998. State role in western watershed

initiatives. Res. Rep. No. 18. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado,

Natural Resources Law Center. 96 p.

Natural Resources Law Center. 2000. Watershed source handbook. Res.

Rep. 24. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Natural Resources Law

Center. 454 p. + appendices.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Forest Service planning: setting

strategic direction under RPA. OTA-F-411. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office. 140 p.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1992a. Forest Service planning:

summary. OTA-F-506. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office. 22 p.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1992b. Forest Service planning:

accommodating uses, producing outputs, and sustaining ecosystems.

OTA-F-505. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 206 p.

Plater, Z.J.B.; Abrahams, R.H.; Golfarb, W.; Graham, R.L. 1998. Environmental law and society: nature, law, and society. St. Paul, MN: West

Publishing Company. 1,034 p.

Sample, V.A.; Le Master, D.C. 1995. Natural resource strategic planning:

components and processes. PR-1095. Washington, DC: Pinchot

Institute for Conservation: [Not paged].

Schoenbaum, T.J.; Rosenburg, R.H. 1996. Environmental policy law.

Westbury, NY: Foundation Press. 1,012 p.

Teeguarden, D.E. 1990. National forest planning under RPA/NMFA: what

needs fixing? FS-462. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. Vol. 11. 66 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980. A guide to statewide forest resource planning. NA-TP-6. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Northeast

Area. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. Critique of land

management planning. FS 452 through FS 462. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Vols 1-11. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Report of the Forest

Service: fiscal year 1998. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/pdb/98report/. [Date

accessed: December 1999].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000a. USDA Forest

Service strategic plan (2000 Revision). FS-682. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 73 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000b. National Forest

System land resources management planning: final rule. 36 CFR Parts

217 and 219. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 69 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The process

predicament: how statutory, regulatory and administrative factors affect

national forest management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 40 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service.

2000. Natural Resource Conservation Service strategic plan: 2000-

2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resource Conservation Service. 49 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000a.

BLM manual: land use planning [1601]. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000b.

BLM land use planning handbook [H-1601-1]. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1998. National

Park Service: park planning. Dir. Order 2. http://www.nps.gov. [Date

accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000. National

Park Service strategic plan: FY 2001-2005. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 47 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2001. National

Park Service: conservation planning, environmental impact analysis,

and decisionmaking. Dir. Order 12. http://www.nps.gov. [Date

accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. EPA strategic plan. EPA190-R—00-002. http://www.epa.gov. [Date accessed: February 2001].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Fish and Wildlife Service strategic

plan: 2000-2005. http://www.fws.gov. [Date accessed: February 2001].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Refuge planning. Land use and

management series. Service manual, Parts 600-699. http://www.fws.gov.

[Date accessed: February 2001].

West Publishing Company. 1997. Selected federal environmental law

statutes. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 1,398 p.

Wickersham, J.H. 1994. The quiet revolution continues: the emerging new

model for State growth management statutes. Harvard Environmental

Law Review. 18: 489-618.

Williams, J.E. 1987. Planning approaches in the Bureau of Land

Management: trends. 24(2): 24-27.


The full text of Indicator 50 is as follows: Extent to which

the legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supports

the conservation and sustainable management of forests,

including the extent to which it Provides opportunities for

public participation in public policy and decisionmaking

related to forests and public access to information

(Montreal Process Working Group 2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

Forests may be managed more sustainably if citizens have

responsibility for their use, management, and protection.

If, through active influence, citizens are given an opportunity to identify areas of opportunity and concern over

forests, they are more likely to support the management of

forests and the principles of sustainability as they might be

incorporated therein. In a broader context, public participation processes can foster practical and political support

for sustainable management. Access to timely, complete,

and accurate information about forests, forest resources,

and socioeconomic trends will enhance these participatory

processes. Public participation can foster political support

for sustainable management (Montreal Process Technical

Advisory Committee 2000, Montreal Process Working

Group 2003).

This indicator gauges capacity for dialogue and interchange

between the public and government on forest and forestrelated issues. In what follows, we review information

about the legal and programmatic capacity for public participation and the effectiveness of public participation in

promoting sustainable forest management and conservation

in the United States. More specifically, we discuss laws,

ordinances, and rules authorizing the development and

implementation of public participation processes; descriptive features of implemented public participation processes

(number, extent of use, accessibility, required versus

optional, notification approaches, process for responding

to public comment); opportunities for public initiatives

and referendums; legal and administrative opportunities

for access to formal administrative and judicial systems

for dispute resolution; administrative structures for

complying with “freedom of information” requirements;

records of formal disputes engaged in and legal actions

taken by the public; and surveys of stakeholders and

interest groups reporting the adequacy of participatory processes (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee

2000).

Conceptual Background

Public participation has become a routine and integral part

of the land management and related activities of nearly all

public resource agencies. Public participation pertains to

those processes by which citizens can engage in the development and implementation of public policies and programs focused on forests. It involves processes that embody

democratic principles of interactive bargaining, negotiating, and mediation between constituents and managers.

Public participation processes open all phases of management decisionmaking—problem identification, data

collection, analysis, alternative formulation, and choice—

to public involvement.

Public participation has been described in a multitude of

ways. Cortner and Shannon (1993) describe public participation as a “mechanism of politics.” The Federal Land

Policy and Management Act defines public participation

as “. . . the opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rulemaking, decisionmaking, and planning with

respect to the public lands, including public meetings or

hearings held at locations near the affected lands, or

advisory mechanisms, or such other procedures as may be

necessary to provide public comment in a particular

instance.” Daniels and Walker (1998) also describe the

function of public participation: “. . . public participation

provides a forum whereby scientific information and

values of the public and the agency can be integrated so

that decisions are viewed as both desirable and feasible.”

The difficulties involved in defining the public in public

participation are alluded to by Dresang and Gosling (1999):

“. . . it is somewhat difficult to separate the discussion of

who is participating from how they are participating.” Is

the public composed of those who provide comments from

afar, or is the public composed of those to be directly

affected (stakeholders) by the results of an agency’s decision, or by the product of a collaborative exercise (Cortner

1995)? The definition of public participation is further

muddied by the vast array of approaches by which the public can actually participate in decision processes (engage

in the electoral process, testify at hearings and meetings,

serve on advisory committees, have direct contact with

public officials, express views and opinions through the

1 Hibbard, Research Specialist, and Ellefson, Professor, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. (Prepared

November 2001.)

Public Participation and Access to Information (Indicator 50)

Calder M. Hibbard and Paul V. Ellefson1


media, and engage in some form of protest action)

(Dresang and Gosling 1999).

“Public participation” (as suggested by this indicator) in not

the only name for public involvement in decisionmaking

related to the use and sustainable management of forest

resources. Other words and expressions can denote the same

concepts and principles embodied in notions of public

participation, including collaboration, public involvement,

participatory democracy, community-based involvement,

and consensus building. This multiple labeling of the same

or similar concepts can complicate efforts to gather and

interpret information that satisfactorily describes institutional capacity for “public participation.”

Public participation processes are attractive to citizens,

public officials, and scholars. Resource managers like

public participation processes because these processes

ensure that the public has a voice in, and responsibility

for, sustainable management of forest resources. Citizens

feel that public participation implies local decisionmaking

and thus provides for locally appropriate solutions to

important resource concerns (Carr and Halvorsen 2001).

These and related interests have been incorporated into a

variety of goals for public participation, including the

achievement of broad notions of democracy (movement

from representative to participatory democracy), political

equity among client groups, accountability of government

officials, specific political goals and objectives, change in

fundamental agency behavior, more environmentally sensitive decisions, citizen support for agency missions and

activities, better educated and informed interests, and

resolution of conflict and political struggles over the use,

management, and protection of forests (Cortner 1995).

Similar reasons and goals for public involvement have been

described by McClaran and King 1999; Shindler and others

1999; Smith and others 1999; Smith and McDonough 2001;

Tuler and Webler 1999; and Wellman and Tipple 1990.

Public participation processes are effective in accomplishing desired goals and objectives (such as those listed above)

to the extent they are consistent with agreed-to principles

of sound participatory management. The following have

been suggested as qualities of a well-designed participatory process: inclusive, sincere leadership, innovative and

flexible, fosters early and continuous involvement, and

results in positive actions toward agreed-to goals (Shindler

and others 1999); meaningful representation, appropriate

involvement in decisions, thoughtfulness and due consideration, logical procedures and outcomes, and actions

consistent with participant desires (Smith and McDonough

2001); good information, good leadership, spectrum of

interests involved, incentives to explore creative solutions,

welcomes diverse personalities, and fosters a sense of ownership and commitment (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000);

access to processes, power to influence process and outcomes, access to information, promotion of constructive

interactions, facilitation of constructive behaviors, adequate

and focused analyses, and the enabling of social conditions

necessary for future application of participatory processes

(Tuler and Webler 1999). There are also factors that can

limit the effectiveness of participatory processes. These

include mistrust of agency commitment to public participation, complexity of forest management issues, polarization of interest groups, and use of group political power to

delay administrative processes (Gericke and Sullivan 1994).

Other sources of useful information about public participation processes include Carpenter and Kennedy 1988, Gray

1989, Keltner 1994, Moore 1996, Susskind, McKearnon,

Thomas-Larmer 1999, and Williams and Ellefson 1997.

Current Legal Capacity

Private Sector Capacity

Private sector legal capacity for public participation may

not be directly relevant to this review. Purely private action

to seek public participation in policy or program development is typically motivated by private economic selfinterest expressed in response to marketplace signals. For

example, a company that uses or sells wood products might

seek public comment on its proposed strategic plan for the

use and management of industrial timberland; an organized

special-interest group might seek comment to determine

the intensity of public interest in the group’s proposed

advocacy plans; and a private consulting organization

might initiate public participation actions as an agencyimposed requirement of a government contract.

The 1966 Seventh American Forest Congress was one of the

Nation’s largest private initiatives in public participation.

The congress was a citizen initiative designed to “ . . . make

explicit the nation’s demand for ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible management of

forests.” Through this congress, citizens were able to

develop a shared vision, a set of principles, and a variety

of recommendations for action. These shared visions, principles, and recommendations were intended to form a

cohesive and secure platform for the future of America’s

forests. Fifty-two roundtables were organized and conducted, 37 collaborative meetings were held, and 575

responses were received from individuals. In total, an estimated 4,000 persons participated in precongress activities.

Of this total, 2,600 participated in roundtable sessions,

800 were party to a collaborative meeting, and 575 individuals presented their vision, principles, and next steps for

America’s forests. More than 6,200 individual statements

of vision, principles, next steps, and unresolved issues had

been generated prior to the congress. The roundtables


alone generated 2,000 such statements. The national congress itself involved nearly 2,000 persons from all regions

of the Nation (Ellefson and MacKay 1996).

Federal Government Capacity

Federal capacity (legal framework) for public participation

is largely a product of legislation and rulemaking occurring

during the last 50 years. The Administrative Procedures

Act of 1946 (as amended in 1976), which set significant

requirements for public participation, was soon followed

by a number of social welfare laws requiring public sharing of agency responsibilities (examples are the Housing

Act of 1954 and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,

which authorized many War on Poverty programs). In the

1950s and 1960s, growing public sentiment for agencypublic interaction generally led citizens and Federal agencies to promote laws, rules, and directives encouraging

public participation in natural resource decisions. There

were 7 Federal legal mandates for public participation by

1966-67, 23 by 1970-71, and 81 by 1971-72 (Cortner

1995). In 2001, at least 23 chapters of the U.S. Code of

Federal Regulations set forth public participation requirements for Federal actions involving forest and related

natural resources (see Appendix). These as well as the

more general statutory requirements for public participation have had a significant effect on the use and management of forests and related resources. Especially notable

in this respect are the Freedom of Information Act of

1966, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Federal

Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Forest and Rangelands

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land

Policy Management Act of 1976, Government in the

Sunshine Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of

1976, and Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990.

Federal statutory requirements for public participation

vary greatly in their requirements and administration (see

Appendix). Some are very specific (for example, for

scenic area management plans involving national forests

“the Secretary shall conduct public hearings and shall

solicit public comment prior to the final adoption of land

use ordinances”), while others are less focused and permit

greater agency discretion (for example, reclamation recreation management shall “. . . be developed with appropriate public participation”). In other cases the Federal

government requires that State governments must certify

that public participation has occurred if Federal funds are

to be made available (for example, Land and Water Conservation Fund financial assistance to States; Wildlife

Restoration Program financial assistance to States), while

in certain situations Federal agencies engage directly in

the development and implementation of public participation processes (for example, land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System). In

addition, some laws are focused on public participation in

decisions concerning forest conditions in general (for

example, Coastal Zone Management plans, Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources plans, Federal Land

Policy and Management plans), while many focus on

specific natural resource issues that may be relevant to

broader forest ecosystems (for example, endangered

species, soil and water conservation, trail systems, wild

and scenic rivers).

Federal statutory requirements for public participation are

expressed in a variety of ways, including procedures for

rulemaking, conditions for agency issuance of permits,

requirements for public meetings, public access to information, and processes for developing and implementing

plans. From a rulemaking perspective, the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA) is instrumental in that it grants citizens “the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or

repeal of a federal rule.” Although the law does not specify

the procedures agencies may use to handle petitions, it

does require that agencies provide for public notice and

comment of proposed regulations or changes to existing

regulations. The process involves agency development of a

proposed regulation (generally with limited or no public

involvement), publication of the proposal in the Federal

Register (along with a procedure for filing comments and

a statement of time period during which written comments

will be received), review of public comments, and, as the

agency considers appropriate, incorporation of public comments in a final rule again to be published in the Federal

Register. The act specifies that the period for public comment must be “reasonable” (other statutes, such as the

Safe Drinking Water Act, may specify a set period of time

for comments), but does not require agencies to conduct

public hearings (other statutes, such as the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act, may require hearings).

Furthermore, the act does not specify a deadline for issuance of a final rule, but requires agencies to conclude

matters “within a reasonable time.” Judicial review of

agency rulemaking activities is authorized by the

Administrative Procedures Act.

Federal capacity for public participation in rulemaking is

also fostered by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990.

The latter specifies legal avenues by which the public

(generally representatives of interest groups) may engage

in various conflict management processes (bargaining,

negotiation, mediation) considered relevant to the establishment of rules and regulations. The act provides a

framework for facilitating development of a consensus

among stakeholders, a framework that reportedly reduces

the often-extended period of time involved in rule making

activities and the frequency, intensity, and cost of litigation

brought forth when stakeholders fail to engage in consensusbuilding processes. Other benefits attributed to the act


include opportunity to identify innovative rules, greater

understanding of real-world impacts of proposed rules,

and more successful implementation as a result of cooperative relationships established between an agency and the

parties affected by the rules (Ellefson and others 1995).

Provisions for public participation may also be called for

by Federal permitting processes. For example, the Clean

Water Act requires agencies to provide public notice of a

permit application for the discharge of water pollutants.

However, most environmental statutes do not specifically

require opportunity for public comment on permit applications. Instead, agencies may offer public comment

opportunities under authority granted by their existing

rulemaking processes generally. In some respects, environmental impact statements may be viewed as applications

for permits. Therefore, the National Environmental Policy

Act provides for public participation in the Federal

environmental impact assessment process. Even though

the act does not specifically require public participation at

all stages in the development of an environmental impact

statement, the Council on Environmental Quality has set

forth regulations requiring agencies to facilitate public

participation throughout the process. Agencies are required

to notify the public of their intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and to allow citizens to participate in the various stages of the statement’s development.

By authority of the Administrative Procedures Act, citizens

may also litigate against the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

Another source of institutional capacity to engage the

public in agency activities is public meeting laws. Two

Federal public meeting laws are of particular interest: the

Government in the Sunshine Act and the Federal Advisory

Committee Act. The former requires “every portion of

every meeting” of certain Federal agencies to be posted in

advance and open to the public. The law does not require

agencies to solicit public participation, but only requires

that the public be allowed to attend meetings where

government business is discussed. The Federal Advisory

Committee Act governs the establishment, operation, and

administration of advisory committees, requiring that the

public be notified of all meetings and that such meetings

are open to the public. The Federal Advisory Committee

Act makes no legal requirement for public participation,

only providing a guarantee that the public can be present

at committee meetings.

Another form of institutional capacity for public participation stems from statutes that provide for public access to

information. The most prominent of such laws is the Freedom of Information Act, which makes nearly all records of

Federal agencies available to the public. Exceptions are

information about national defense, internal personnel

rules, trade secrets, medical and personnel files, law

enforcement records, information used to oversee financial

institutions, geologic information, information exempted

from disclosure by another statute, and agency memoranda

otherwise unavailable by law. The guarantee of access to

information was expanded in 1990 by the Disclosure

Provision for Research Data Act, which makes available to

the general public the results of certain research generated

by Federal grants. The Emergency Planning and Right-ToKnow Act also guarantees public access to information by

enabling citizens to participate in determining who needs

an emergency response plan and how such plans should be

developed. The law also guarantees public access to a

number of types of reports and documents, including the

emergency notification of a release, material data safety

sheets, emergency and hazardous chemical inventory

forms, toxic chemical release forms, and toxic release

inventories.

Also relevant to the public’s ability to participate in agency

processes are a number of Federal laws that require or

strongly suggest public involvement in planning processes.

Examples are the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976, the Forest and Rangelands Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the National Forest

Management Act of 1976. These acts include provisions

that require the administering agency to include the public

in the development of management plans for specified

Federal lands. In the case of the National Forest Management Act, provisions are specifically made for the public

to appeal national forestland management plans (Gericke

and Sullivan 1994). Forty Washington office appeals decisions regarding land and management plans were made

between 1996 and January 2002, and the number of appeal

decisions made at the agency’s regional levels since 1996

probably approaches 2000 (for example, 14 appeal decisions involved the Bitterroot National Forest, 54 involved

the Superior National Forest, and 84 involved the Sawtooth

National Forest).

State Government Capacity

Since the 1960s, States have made explicit and specific

commitments to citizen accessibility to government by

passing laws requiring State agencies and local governments to have open meetings and open records except

where it is necessary to protect the privacy rights of individuals. Forty-nine States have open meeting laws that

apply to the legislative and executive branches at both the

State and local government levels (courts are excluded

from open meeting laws). Of these States, 41 require

advance notice of meetings, 37 obligate agencies to keep

minutes, and 31 do not recognize any action as official

unless it occurs at an open meeting. Officials who meet in

secret may be personally fined or otherwise punished in 35


States. Complementing open meeting laws are open record

laws (freedom of information laws), which all States have

established. Such laws establish the right of individuals to

see the written records of government, often at a cost to

those making the request (Dresang and Gosling 1999). The

extent to which open State meeting and open record laws

are applied in connection with forest and natural resources

issues is unknown.

State governments have also established formal ways in

which citizens can take direct action beyond electing

officials or trying to influence them once they are in office.

Twenty States provide for direct initiatives by which citizens can make or change State laws (table 1). Laws authorizing such initiatives provide that propositions are to be

placed on the ballot if a specified number of signatures of

registered voters are obtained. In seven States, citizen

initiatives are more indirect: a petition may be submitted

to the State legislature, which can adopt the proposition as

received, place it on a ballot unaltered, or modify it before

placing it on a ballot. State referendum procedures are

another tool empowering citizen participation. Such

procedures enable voters to reject laws enacted by a State

legislature or to advise legislatures on important issues.

Referendum authority that enables voters to reject laws

enacted by a State legislature exists in 23 States. In some

States, citizens also have access to advisory referendums

(by which voters provide advice to a legislature). During

the period 1981-1992, 327 citizen-prompted initiatives

appeared on State ballots (California 65 initiatives, Oregon

44, Colorado 24, Arizona 20) (Public Affairs Research

Institute 1992). The extent to which initiatives and referendums are used as tools for public participation in matters

involving forests and related natural resources is largely

unknown. Where used, they often generate significant

interest and controversy. Examples are California’s 1980s

initiatives to limit the application of certain forest practices and Oregon’s 2000 initiative requiring payments to

landowners for government-imposed regulation that

reduces property values (Oregon Secretary of State 2000).

State governments also have laws, rules, and administrative directives that specifically require public participation

in forest resource decisions (planning, permitting, rule

making) and authorize citizen access to government information about forests. Again, the extent of this capacity has

not been documented systematically. However, a 1987

survey of citizen groups and various government officials

engaged in forest resource planning found that State forest

resource planners recognized public involvement as a

critical component of statewide planning, and that a high

percentage (56 percent) felt that the public participation

was adequate and appropriate (Gray and Ellefson 1987).

Such findings indicate that there is appreciable legal and

institutional capacity for public participation in State

forestry matters.

State governments have also seen fit to establish governing

or advisory entities through which the public can participate in agency activities. Responsibilities assigned to such

bodies can range from providing advice on program development and implementation to being legally responsible

for directing and managing a particular unit of government.

Often, but not always, these bodies are composed of

interested citizens appointed by a State’s governor or by

the chief administrator of the entity that is to be advised or

governed. In 2000, States had created 248 governing or

advisory bodies that in some way influence the use, management, and protection of forests (table 2). Variously

labeled as “boards” (Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners), “councils” (South Carolina Interagency Council

on Natural Resources Policy), “committees” (Michigan

Soil Conservation Committee), or “commissions” (West

Table 1—Legal authority of State governments for

initiatives and popular referendums, State and type of

authority (1998)

Direct Indirect Popular

State initiative initiative referendum

Alabama X

Alaska X X

Arizona X X

Arkansas X X

California X X

Colorado X

Florida X

Idaho X

Illinois X

Kentucky X

Maine X X

Maryland X

Massachusetts X X

Michigan X X X

Missouri X X

Montana X X

Nebraska X X

Nevada X X X

New Mexico X

North Dakota X X

Ohio X X

Oklahoma X X

Oregon X X

South Dakota X X

Utah X X X

Washington X X X

Wyoming X X

Source: Dresang and Gosling (1999).
	

Table 2—Number of State government governing or advisory bodies influencing the use,

management, or protection of forests, by State and unit name (2000)

Governing or advisory body Region and

State Board Council Committee Commission Other Total

North

Connecticut 1 1

Delaware

Illinois 4 1 1 6

Indiana 1 1 2 1 5

Iowa 1 1 2 4

Maine 6 2 1 9

Maryland 1 2 2 7 1 13

Massachusetts 1 1

Michigan 3 1 1 4 9

Minnesota 3 1 4

Missouri 1 2 8 11

New Hampshire 4 1 1 6

New Jersey 1 2 4 7

New York 2 1 3

Ohio 1 2 3

Pennsylvania 1 3 1 1 6

Rhode Island 1 1 2

Vermont 5 3 1 9

West Virginia 5 1 6

Wisconsin 4 2 7

Total 44 23 10 33 2 112

South

Alabama 1 1 2

Arkansas 3 3

Florida 1 1

Georgia 1 1

Kentucky 5 3 1 5 1 15

Louisiana 2 1 1 4

Mississippi 1 1 2

North Carolina 1 3 4

Oklahoma 1 3 4

South Carolina 2 2 4

Tennessee 1 1

Texas 1 1

Virginia 8 8

Total 18 8 3 20 1 50

West

Alaska 3 3

Arizona 1 1

California 4 1 4 9

Colorado 3 1 4

Hawaii 1 4 5

Idaho 1 2 3

Kansas 1 2 3

Montana 2 1 2 1 6

Nebraska 2 2

Nevada 2 1 2 5

New Mexico 1 3 4

North Dakota 5 2 3 2 12

Oregon 5 8 13

South Dakota 2 2

Utah 1 1

Washington 3 1 3 7

Wyoming 1 1 2 2 6

Total 30 7 10 39 0 86

Total 92 38 23 92 3 248

Note: Other units are: Indiana Natural Resources Foundation (Department of Natural Resources); Maryland Environmental

Trust; and Kentucky Agricultural Water Quality Authority (Department of Agriculture).

Source: Ellefson and others (2001).



Virginia Commission on Tourism) (examples, table 3), an

average of five such entities existed in each State (an average of 3.8 per State in the South and an average of 5.6 per

State in the North). Kentucky had the greatest number of

advisory-governing bodies whose actions influenced forest

conditions (15), with Maryland (13), Oregon (13), and

North Dakota (12) following closely behind. Eight States

reported only one advisory or governing body each, while

one State (Delaware) reported having no such entities

involved in forest matters (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002).

The institutional and legal capacity for public participation

at the State government level is also reflected by the

extent to which citizens have access to and participate in

organized interest groups. Comprehensive analyses of

citizen group involvement in forest and related resource

matters have not been conducted, but information about

the impact of interest groups at the State level in policy

development generally is enlightening. Thomas and

Hrebenar (1990) describe the degree of interest group

influence or effectiveness within States as follows:

• Dominant (influence is overwhelming): Alabama,

Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico,

South Carolina, and West Virginia

• Dominant/Complementary (influence is strong but

limited by that of other political actors): Arizona,

Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,

Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio,

Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington,

and Wyoming

• Complementary (influence is balanced with that of other

political actors): Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South

Dakota, and Wisconsin

• Complementary/Subordinate (some influence exists, but

that of other political actors is primary): Connecticut,

Delaware, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont

• Subordinate (influence is weak or inconsequential):

none

Table 3—State government governing or advisory bodies (examples) influencing use, management,

and protection of forests (2000)

Source: Ellefson and others (2001).

Board of Registered Foresters

State Parks Board

Natural Heritage Commission

Pollution Control and Ecology Commission

Soil and Water Commission

Energy Commission

Wildlife Conservation Board

Water Resources Control Board

Biodiversity Council

Board of Forestry and Fire Protection

Forest Resources Council

Economic Development Commission

Council on Environmental Quality

Commission on Water Resources Management

Commission on Animal Species

Board of Land Use Appeals

Commission on Natural Area Preserves

Forest Products Commission

Pollution Control Board

Endangered Species Protection Board

Hardwood Development Council

Natural Resources Ethics Commission

Rural Development Council

Environmental Protection Commission

Forestry Commission

Economic Development Partnership

Environmental Education Council

Wood Product Competitive Board

Geographic Information Systems Council

Board of Licensure for Professional Foresters

Land Use Regulation Commission

Coastal Resources Management Council

Board of Pesticides Control

Environmental Priorities Council

Interagency Council on Natural Resources Policy

Tourism Development Board

Water Monitoring Council

Environmental Science Board

Environmental Quality Board

Commission on Hazardous Waste Management

Board of Environmental Review

Forest, Parks and Recreation Council

Board of Surface Mines

Commerce and Economic Growth Commission

State Game Commission

Fish and Wildlife Management Board

Community Forestry Council

Wetlands Trust Board

Wildlife and Parks Commission

Council on Ecosystem Management


Local Government Capacity

Local units of government often follow the lead of their

State counterparts on matters of public access to government decisionmaking. In many cases, local units of government are bound by State law on such matters (Dresang

and Gosling 1999). Unfortunately, the legal and institutional capacity of local governments to engage citizens in

local government actions generally, and forest resource

matters specifically, has not been assessed systematically

or comprehensively.

Summary of Conditions

Public participation is an important step in determining

and accomplishing societal interests in the sustainability

of forests. This review suggests the following:

• The public participates in public agency decisions in a

variety of ways. Members of the public engage in electoral processes, testify at public hearings and meetings,

participate directly in multistakeholder collaboration

activities, and engage in challenge or protest actions.

The range of approaches to public participation is broad

because the resource, social, and political issues associated with forests and their management are diverse.

• The legal capacity needed to engage the public in decisions regarding forest sustainability exists for nearly all

State and Federal agencies that have responsibility for

forests and related resources. However, the extent to

which this capacity is exercised varies considerably

within and among levels of government.

• Public participation processes are embodied in various

legally established administrative structures and procedures. The latter include rulemaking (citizen right to

petition regarding proposed rules), permit issuing (citizen right to know and deliberate issuance of proposed

permits), planning (citizen right to participate in design

of plans and programs), and information (citizen right to

access government information).

• Federal authority to initiate public participation activities emanates from forest resource law (for example,

National Forest Management Act), from environmental

law (for example, National Environmental Policy Act),

and from general government administrative law (for

example, Administrative Procedures Act). There is substantial variation in the scope, focus, and intensity of

Federal agency capacity stemming from these different

legal authorities. Furthermore, Federal legal requirements

for public participation are not always comprehensive;

they very often focus on a single natural resource sector

(for example, wildlife, water, recreation).

• State government authority to engage in public participation and related activities emanates primarily from

open meeting and open record laws (only one State does

not have an open-meeting law). However, States also

authorize public participation in policy development via

initiatives and referendums (all States have some form

of authority for initiatives and referendums), citizen service on governing or advisory entities (248 such entities

focus on forest resource and related agencies), forest

resource planning activities, and participation in interest

groups that focus the forest resource interests of many

citizens.

• Local units of government often follow their State

counterparts on matters of public access to government

decisionmaking. The capacity of local governments to

engage in public participation activities related to

sustainable forestry is largely unknown.

Issues and Trends

Many questions remain to be asked about public participation in activities related to the sustainable management of

forests. For example, who is the public and what is its

proper role? What constitutes participation and when should

it occur? What is the proper response of agency officials to

resource decisions made with public participation? To

what extent does broad citizen involvement promote the

elusive “public interest” in forests? What distinctions (if

any) should be made between participatory democracy and

representative democracy? Should public officials be

responsible to elected representatives when determining

appropriate policies and directions regarding sustainability? Should legislative authority invested in an agency be

devolved to collaborative groups or to a participatory

process? Should persons or groups that do not engage in

public participation be excluded from future decisions

regarding policy selections? Do arrangements for public

participation give the public access to the necessary scientific and technical expertise? Is conflict (as opposed to

agreement and harmony) inherently bad, and are local

solutions necessarily preferable to “top-down” solutions?

And is there danger in focusing on well-functioning collaborative processes at the expense of substantive and sound

sustainable forestry policies and programs? These and a

host of related issues arise whenever the phrase “public

participation” is used by professionals and lay citizens

(McCloskey 1996, 2001; Wellman and Tipple 1990;

Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

The effectiveness of public participation processes has

also been the subject of discussion and debate. Concerned

parties often wonder what constitutes a successful or effective public participation process (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 2002). McCool and Guthrie

(2001) suggest at least two standards: product-oriented

measures of success (preparation of a plan, implementation


of a plan, social and political acceptability) and processoriented measures of success (two-way learning, responsibility, relationship building, representation of interests). In

fact, however, few studies of effectiveness have been conducted. Those that have been carried out suggest that public

participation processes often favor highly educated, older

males with higher incomes (Carr and Halvorsen 2001) and

individuals who represent commodity or environmental

interests (Baas 1993). Others have focused on participant

satisfaction with public participation processes and the

costs associated with such processes. McClaran and King

(1999) found that all 96 national forest plans stimulated

at least one appeal by 1989 and that the average was 8.4

appeals per plan. At the time of the study, 574 appeals

had been resolved at an average cost of $50,000 per plan.

Gerlicke and Sullivan (1994) estimated that public

participation in national forest planning on 61 national

forests cost the Government $61 million and required an

average of 16 person-years of time. These costs do not

include those incurred by interest groups and individuals

who participated in the planning processes.

The literature devoted to issues and trends in public participation in relation to forest sustainability is especially

rich. Examples of this literature (from which the following

issues and trends are drawn) are: Baas 1993; Carr and

Halvorsen 2001; Cortner and Shannon 1993; Daniels and

Walker 1998; Lawrence and Daniels 1996; McCloskey

1996, 2001; Moore 1996; Smith and McDonough 2001;

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2002;

Williams and Ellefson 1997; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000.

• Declining trust in government institutions generally has

often distanced citizens from involvement in civic

affairs. Invigorated and more engaging use of public

participation may be increasing citizen involvement in

government activities and rebuilding a sense of trust in

government institutions.

• Multiple fragmented interests and the decline of integrative forces in forest resource decisionmaking have

led to policy and program impasses that have fostered

an increasing interest among agencies and other interested parties in new approaches for determining how

forest resources will be used, managed, and protected.

The huge expense and social costs associated with such

impasses have been a major stimulus to renewed interest

and vigor in public participation. Conflict-laden issues

may persist, but there may be a growing sense that citizens are part of a community who have common interests and are actively and cooperatively determining the

use, management, and protection of forests.

• Decentralization of agency decisionmaking regarding

forests and related resources has fostered greater citizen

interest in becoming involved in agency decisionmaking.

Citizens who share a sense of community based on their

common interest in a physical place appear more likely

to become active participants in public participation

processes.

• Formal processes (public hearings, advisory committees)

for engaging the public in agency decisionmaking are

increasingly viewed as adversarial in nature and are

therefore limited in their ability to deal with conflict

and discord over appropriate directions for forest sustainability. Agencies are increasingly interpreting their

public participation authority to be more interactive and

collaborative in nature.

• There is increasing disagreement about the relative

merits of participatory democracy and representative

democracy. For example, there are those who argue that

agencies should directly engage citizens to determine

agency roles and directions, and there are others who

argue that these roles and directions should be determined by elected or appointed political officials.

Concern over agency failure to exercise leadership in

response to legislative mandates is also at issue.

• The effectiveness of public participation, and the relative merits of approaches that might be used to engage

the public in agency decisionmaking, are increasingly

unclear. It is uncertain whether public participation

leads to a better reflection of the broad public interest in

sustainable forestry than do other approaches to determining such interest. Analyses of efficiency and effectiveness are often muddied by unclear expectations

about the role of public participation in rulemaking,

permit issuance, and planning.

• More attention is being focused on determining who

constitutes the public of interest with respect to agency

decisionmaking. Efforts are being made to be more

inclusive of interested parties, involving more than the

most directly affected and most interested ones. However, discovering the appropriate combination of citizen

input and professional expertise remains a difficult and

unsolved problem within many agencies.

• The extent of application of public participation in

sustainable forestry decision making is increasingly of

concern, especially where such participation might be

applied to private sector actions. Public participation

applied to private forestlands implies that property

rights and property tenure arrangements have changed.

Similarly, the public’s right of access to information

regarding how private decisions are made also points to

privacy and property rights issues.

• Public participation in the form of public access to the

courts as a way of addressing issues involving forest

sustainability has been common for many years. Laws

and legal decisions have directed courts to be more

liberal in determining who can bring a suit and the types

of issues that can be addressed by citizen advocates.


• Interactive or collaborative public participation processes are increasingly being viewed as effective means

of coordinating activities that involve many programs or

many landowner categories. They are also being viewed

as effective approaches for undertaking joint management activities (for example, Federal and State fire

control activities), mobilizing resources (for example,

financial and personnel resources), and exchanging

information and sharing ideas (for example, multiagency

information management).

• Public participation processes are becoming more sensitive to the growing interests of ethnic and other minority

groups in forest and related natural resources. The language, traditions, and cultural background of such groups

have often limited agency efforts to solicit minority

involvement in agency decisionmaking (Baas 1993).

Conversely, and often because of language, traditions,

and background, such groups have been reluctant to get

involved in agency matters.

Information Adequacy

Specification

Information about public participation and public access

to information considered important to forest sustainability has been the focus of attention by many public and

private organizations. In 1999, the National Association of

State Foresters reported that 3 States had abundant information about public participation, 17 had sufficient information, and 3 had little information. It was considered

somewhat troubling that 27 States had no information

about public participation and public access to information.

Four States reported that the quality of their information

was excellent, 17 that it was adequate, and 2 that it was

poor (National Association of State Foresters 1999). As

best can be determined, no other organization has undertaken efforts to determine the nature and timeliness of

information about public participation activities in the

context of forest resources. Those that have been undertaken have not always been comprehensive or capable of

being aggregated and usefully summarized. Furthermore,

the available information often lacks a concerted focus on

public participation and information-access activities.

Relatively little empirical research has been done on public

participation processes, especially in relation to forest and

related natural resource issues. In large measure this void

results from problems in defining the intent and appropriate scope of public participation, and the lack of consistency in standards for judging the success of public participation processes. Even though many have offered generic

criteria for assessing public participation processes (Carr

and Halvorsen 2001, Cortner 1995, Shindler and others

1999, Smith and McDonough 2001, Tuler and Webler

1999), the results of research using such criteria often

remain unclear and indeterminate. There have been many

case studies of public participation, but little compilation

of these studies has occurred. Very limited research has

been undertaken to connect conflict management and

public participation activities, testing the hypothesis that

public participation processes provide a venue in which to

constructively manage conflict. As an example, Gericke

and Sullivan (1994) found that the proportion of forest

designated as wilderness and the level of developed

recreation use were good predictors of potential levels of

conflict, and that the amount of time spent in public

participation processes was not a significant factor in

predicting levels of conflict.

The voids in information about public participation and

public access to information are numerous and represent

significant challenges to research. Examples of these

information voids are as follows:

Measurement information—Variables that are appropriate for measuring the extent and effectiveness of public

participation processes have not been identified and

assembled. What are the goals of these processes and how

do these affect the variables and measurement techniques

applied to them? Do different goals lend themselves to the

use of different variables and approaches to measurement?

Can the variables used to measure the processes be compared when applied to different processes? How are these

variables to actually be measured?

Extent of activity information—Compilation of the

Federal legal framework for public participation that is

related to forest resources has not been completed. State

and local legal requirements for public participation have

not been compiled. How extensive are local, State, and

Federal authorities for public participation? Are these

requirements changing over time? How do public participation processes interact between and within levels of

government? How often does the public participate in

participation processes? What are their expectations, and

are those expectations being met?

Responsible organization information—Public and private entities involved in public participation processes have

not been identified comprehensively and systematically.

What agencies are involved, what legal authority assigns

them responsibility, and is such authority being interpreted

accurately? Are there organizational patterns that enhance

or hinder the public participation process? Do public participation processes vary among different administering

agencies?


Coordination information—Requirements for coordinating public participation among and between governments

have not been compiled. How do differing public participation processes affect coordination of citizen interests

across sectors, geography, and agencies? Are there legal

requirements for coordination? Does the legal framework

provide for processes that can be effective mechanisms for

cross-sectoral policy integration? Does the legal framework support or discourage collaborative processes in

which multisectoral actors come together at multiple

levels to formulate and implement policy?

Procedure and specification information—Approaches

to public participation in connection with the use and

management of forest resources are many; their type and

frequency of use have not been compiled or assessed.

What degree of autonomy does the legal framework provide to decisionmakers when they work within collaborative and participatory processes? How much flexibility is

there within the legal framework for different mechanisms

of public participation? How prescriptive are the laws and

regulations (for example, do they specify how to conduct

public participatory meetings)?

Effectiveness information—The effectiveness of public

participation processes has received only limited attention,

and conclusions about it have been assembled only in a

piecemeal fashion. What indicators should be measured to

determine effectiveness? Do such indicators of effectiveness vary from process to process and from entity to entity?

How would outcomes that might be expected from participatory democratic processes differ from those that might

be expected from a representative democratic process? Are

some processes more effective in certain situations than in

others (such as collaborative versus public hearings, or

legislative versus judicial involvement of citizens)? What

types of monitoring might be appropriate to determining

the long-term consequences of public participation?

Recommendations

The public’s ability to influence forest sustainability will

depend a great deal on the public’s access to information

and to agency decisionmaking processes, as Indicator 50

suggests. A number of information voids must be addressed

if the institutional setting for public participation in sustainable forest use and management is to be improved.

The following measures for dealing with these information

voids would seem appropriate:

Perform comprehensive periodic reviews—Conduct comprehensive periodic reviews of current Federal, State, and

local authorities that give direction and resources to public

participation processes and public access to information.

Guided by the above suggested information deficiencies,

the reviews should give special attention to the collection

of information concerning the different types of public

participation processes, the organizations that implement

them, and the effect of participatory activities on the

accomplishment of desired forest values.

Assign responsibility for conducting reviews—Assign

responsibility for conducting continuing reviews of these

authorities to a specific, existing administrative unit of a

Federal agency (such as the USDA Forest Service’s

Programs and Legislation unit, State and Private Forestry

unit, or Research and Development unit), a college or

university, or other nonprofit organization (such as the

Pinchot Institute for Forest Conservation or the National

Association of State Foresters). This responsibility should

be assigned to an organization that has a proven track

record in addressing the complexities of developing and

implementing public participation programs involving

forests and their sustainability.

Devote resources to reviews—Invest sufficient financial

and personnel resources to provide the type and quantity

of information necessary to dramatically improve understanding of current abilities to develop and implement

public participation activities considered important to

sustainable forestry.

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

Analysis of the legal capacity to engage in activities suggested or alluded to by Indicator 50 is hampered by the

use of undefined words and phrases, including “public,”

“public participation,” public policy,” “decisionmaking,”

and “public access to information.” These words or phrases

are supposedly grounded in an agreed-to set of concepts,

but such is not always the case. For example, the term

“public” is at times used to refer to those affected by or

interested in a pending resource decision, while at other

times it is used to refer to society in general. Also troubling

is the inclusion in the Indicator of the phrase “. . . [opportunities for] public access to information.” It would probably

be better to discuss public access to information in connection with Indicator 53 (public involvement activities and

public education). Finally, we propose that Indicator 50 be

reworded as follows: “. . . provides opportunity for citizens

to participate, in an informed manner, in decisions affecting

forests.”

Relationship to Other Indicators

Indicator 50 is clearly and directly related to Indicators 48

(property rights), 49 (planning), 51 (best-practice codes),


52 (special values), 53 (public involvement and education),

and 66 (impacts of human intervention). It is less directly

related to Indicators 38 (investment in forests), 39 (investment in research), 40 (new technologies), 57 (enforcement),

61 (inventory information), 63 (scientific understanding),

and 64 (value integrative methods).

Literature Cited

Baas, J.M. 1993. Assessing ethnic group participation in Federal land

management agency public involvement processes. In: Ewert, A.W.;

Chavez, D.J.; Magill, A.W., eds. Culture, conflict, and communication

in the wildland-urban interface. Boulder, CO: Westview Press:

357-370.

Carpenter, S.L.; Kennedy, W.J.D. 1988. Managing public disputes: a

practical guide for handling conflict and reaching agreements. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 293 p.

Carr, D.S.; Halvorsen, K. 2001. An evaluation of three democratic community-based approaches to citizen participation: surveys, conversations

with community groups, and community leaders. Society and Natural

Resources. 14(2):107-126.

Cortner, H.J. 1995. Legal and institutional considerations in public

participation in the United States. In: Tsuchiya, T.; Kakizawa, H., eds.

Proceedings, international symposium on public participation and

environmental conservation. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Society of Forest

Planning Press: 1-13.

Cortner, H.J.; Shannon, M.A. 1993. Embedding public participation in its

political context. Journal of Forestry. 91(7):14-16.

Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B. 1998. Rethinking public participation in

natural resource management: concepts from pluralism and five emerging approaches. In: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization:

pluralism and sustainable forestry and rural development: Proceedings

of an international workshop. Rome, Italy: United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization: 29-48.

Dresang, D.L.; Gosling, J.J. 1999. Politics and policy in American States

and communities. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Publishers. 459 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of private

forestry practices by State governments. Station Bull. 605-1995. St.

Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; MacKay, D.G. 1996. Synthesized vision, principles and

next steps: seventh American Forest Congress roundtable meetings,

collaborative meetings and individual responses. Staff Pap 112. St.

Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.

337 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: an

assessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape of

State governments. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department

of Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of State

agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry 100(6):25-34.

Gericke, K.L.; Sullivan, J. 1994. Public participation and appeals of

Forest Service plans: an empirical examination. Society and Natural

Resources. 7(2): 125-135.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty

problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 329 p.

Gray, G.J.; Ellefson, P.V. 1987. Statewide forest resource planning programs: an evaluation of program administration and effectiveness. Sta.

Bull. 582-1987. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment

Station. 149 p.

Keltner, J.W. 1994. The management of struggle: elements of dispute

resolution through negotiation, mediation and bargaining. Cresskill,

NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. 268 p.

Lawrence, R.L.; Daniels, S.E. 1996. Public involvement in natural

resource decision making: goals, methodology, and evaluation. Papers

in Forest Policy 3. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest

Research Laboratory. 49 p.

McClaran, M.P.; King, D.A. 1999. Procedural fairness, personal benefits,

agency expertise, and planning participants’ support of the Forest

Service. Natural Resources Journal. 39(3): 443-458.

McCloskey, M. 1996. The skeptic: collaboration has its limits. High

Country News. 1996 May 13. [Not paged].

McCloskey, M. 2001. A critique of public participation and collaborative

exercises (summary comments at closing session of international

symposium). Society and Natural Resources. 14: 627-634.

McCool, S.F.; Guthrie, K. 2001. Mapping the dimensions of successful

public participation in messy natural resources management situations.

Society and Natural Resources. 14(4): 309-323.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate

and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Moore, C.W. 1996. The mediation process: practical strategies for managing conflict. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 624 p.

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation

assessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date

accessed: September 2001].

Oregon Secretary of State. 2000. General election voters pamphlet: 2000.

Salem, OR: Oregon Secretary of State. [Not paged]. (Vol. 1).

Public Affairs Research Institute. 1992. Initiative and referendum analysis. Report 3 (June). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Public

Affairs Research Institute. [Not paged].

Shindler, B.; Cheek, K.A.; Stankey, G.H. 1999. Monitoring and evaluating

citizen-agency interactions: A framework developed for adaptive

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-452. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 48 p.

Smith, P.D.; McDonough, M.; Mang, M.T. 1999. Ecosystem management

and public participation: Lessons from the field. Journal of Forestry.

97(10): 32-38.

Smith, P.D.; McDonough, M. 2001. Beyond public participation: fairness

in natural resource decisionmaking. Society and Natural Resources.

14(3): 239-249.


Susskind, L.; McKearnan, S.; Thomas-Larmer, J. 1999. The consensus

building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1,147 p.

Thomas, C.S.; Hrebenar, R.J. 1990. Interest groups in the States. In: Gray,

V., Jacob, H., Albritton, R.B., eds. Politics in the American States: a

comparative analysis. Glenwood, IL: Harper-Collins Publishers:

147-162.

Tuler, S.; Webler, T. 1999. Voices from the forest: what participants expect

of a public participation process. Society and Natural Resources. 12(5):

437-453.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The process predicament: how statutory, regulatory and administrative factors affect

national forest management. Washington, DC: Department of

Agriculture. 40 p.

Wellman, J.D.; Tipple, T.J. 1990. Public forestry and direct democracy.

The Environmental Professional. 12:77-86.

Williams, E.M.; Ellefson, P.V. 1997. Going into partnership to manage a

landscape. Journal of Forestry. 95(5): 29-33.

Wondolleck, J.M.; Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making collaboration work: lessons

from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC:

Island Press. 277 p.


TITLE 16 – CONSERVATION

Chapter 1 – National Parks, Military Parks,

Monuments, and Seashores

Subchapter I – National Park Service

Sec. 1a-5. Additional areas for National Park System:

“Each study under this section shall be prepared with

appropriate opportunity for public involvement, including

at least one public meeting in the vicinity of the area under

study, and after reasonable efforts to notify potentially

affected landowners and State and local government.”

Subchapter LX – National Military Parks

Sec. 430-g. Advisory Commission: “Notice of meetings

and agenda shall be published in local newspapers which

have a distribution which generally covers the area

affected by the park. Advisory Commission meetings shall

be held at locations and in such a manner as to ensure

adequate public involvement.”

Subchapter LXIX – Outdoor Recreation Programs

Part B – Land and Water Conservation Fund

Sec. 4601-8. Financial assistance to States: “That no plan

shall be approved unless the Governor of the respective

State certifies that ample opportunity for public participation in plan development and revision has been accorded.

The Secretary shall develop, in consultation with others,

criteria for public participation, which criteria shall constitute the basis for the certification by the Governor.”

Part E – Reclamation Recreation Management

Sec. 4601-33. “Management of reclamation lands shall be

developed with appropriate public participation.”

Chapter 2 – National Forests

Subchapter I

Sec. 479a. Conveyance of National Forest System lands

for educational purposes: “... an opportunity for public

participation in a disposal under this section has been

provided, including at least one public hearing or meeting,

to provide for public comment.”

Subchapter II – Scenic Areas

Sec 541b. Boundaries of scenic-research area; adjustments

to subarea boundary; development of management plan;

establishment of subareas; management objectives:

“Provided, that, from time to time, the Secretary may,

after public hearing or other appropriate means for public

participation, make adjustments in the boundaries of subareas to reflect changing natural conditions or to provide

for more effective management of the Area and each of the

subareas in accordance with the purposes and provisions

of the subchapter.” “As soon as practicable after December

22, 1974, the Secretary shall, with provisions for appropriate public participation in the planning process, develop

a comprehensive management plan for the Area.”

Sec. 544d. Scenic area management plan: “The Secretary

and the Commission shall conduct public hearings and

solicit public comment prior to the final adoption of land

use ordinances.”

Sec. 546a-1. Administration and management: “In preparing the management plan, the Secretary shall consult with

appropriate State and local government officials, provide

for full public participation, and consider the views of all

interested parties, organizations, and individuals.”

Chapter 5A – Protection and Conservation of Wildlife

Subchapter III – Endangered Species of Fish and Wildlife

Sec. 668dd. National Wildlife Refuge System: “The public

should be given a full and open opportunity to participate

in decisions regarding acquisition and management of

National Wildlife Refuges.”“...ensure appropriate public

involvement opportunities will be provided in conjunction

with refuge planning and management activities.”

Chapter 5B – Wildlife Restoration

Sec. 669. Cooperation of Secretary of the Interior with

States: “...to encourage State fish and wildlife agencies to

provide for public involvement in the process of development and implementation of a wildlife conservation and

restoration program.”

Sec. 669c. Allocation and apportionment of available

amounts: “...provisions to ensure public participation in

the development, revision, and implementation of projects

and programs required under this paragraph. A State shall

provide an opportunity for public participation in the

Appendix

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Requirements for Public

Participation Processes Involving Forest and Related Resources, 2001


development of the comprehensive plan required under

paragraph (1).”

Chapter 6 – Game and Bird Preserves; Protection

Sec. 698r. Administration: “The secretary shall develop and

conduct a program to promote and encourage awareness of

and participation in the development of the general management plan for the Preserve by persons owning property

in the vicinity of the Preserve, other interested groups and

individuals, State, county, and municipal agencies, and the

general public.” “In preparing and implementing the plan

described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give full

consideration to the views and comments of the individuals, groups, and agencies described in paragraph (1).”

Sec. 698u-5. Advisory Committee: “Meetings shall be held

at such locations and in such a manner as to ensure adequate opportunity for public involvement. In compliance

with the requirements of FACA, the advisory Committee

shall choose an appropriate means of providing interested

members of the public advance notice of scheduled

meetings.”

Chapter 7 – Protection of Migratory Game and

Insectivorous Birds

Subchapter I – Generally

Sec. 701. Game and wild birds; preservation: “These protocols may be incorporated into existing actions; however,

the MOU shall recognize that the agency may not be able

to implement some elements of the MOU until such time

as the agency has successfully included them in each

agency’s formal planning process (such as revision of

agency land management plans, land use compatibility

guidelines, integrated resource management plans, and

fishery management plans), including public participation

and NEPA analysis, as appropriate.”

Chapter 27 – National Trails System

Section. 1244. National scenic and national historic trails:

“The Secretary of the Interior shall – (i) encourage

communities and owners of land along the trail, native

Hawaiians, and volunteer trail groups to participate in the

planning, development, and maintenance of the trail.”

Chapter 28 – Wild and Scenic Rivers

Sec. 1274. Component rivers and adjacent lands:

“Commission meetings shall be held at locations and in

such a manner as to ensure adequate public involvement.”

Sec. 1276. Rivers constituting potential additions to

national wild and scenic rivers system: “For purposes of

such river studies, the Secretary shall consult with each

River Study Committee authorized under section 5 of the

Michigan Scenic Rivers Act of 1990, and shall encourage

public participation and involvement through hearings,

workshops, and such other means as are necessary to be

effective.”

Chapter 32 – Marine Sanctuaries

Sec. 1445a. Advisory Councils, Public participation and

procedural matters: “The following guidelines apply with

respect to the conduct of business meetings of an Advisory

Council: (1) Each meeting shall be open to the public, and

interested persons shall be permitted to present oral or

written statements on items on the agenda. (2) Emergency

meetings may be held at the call of the chairman or presiding officer. (3) Timely notice of each meeting, including

the time, place, and agenda of the meeting, shall be published locally and in the Federal Register, except that in

case of a meeting of an Advisory Council established to

provide assistance regarding any individual national marine

sanctuary the notice is not required to be published in the

Federal Register. (4) Minutes of each meeting shall be

kept and contain a summary of the attendees and matters

discussed.”

Chapter 33 – Coastal Zone Management

Sec. 1455. Administrative grants: “Management program

provides for public participation in permitting processes,

consistency determinations, and similar decisions.”

Sec. 1455b. Protecting coastal waters: “Opportunities for

public participation in all aspects of the program, including

the use of public notices and opportunities for comment,

nomination procedures, public hearings, technical and

financial assistance, public education, and other means.”

Sec. 1458. Review of performance: “In evaluating a coastal

state’s performance, the Secretary shall conduct the evaluation in an open and public manner, and provide full

opportunity for public participation, including holding

public meetings in the State being evaluated and providing

opportunities for the submission of written and oral comments by the public. The Secretary shall provide the public

with at least 45 days’ notice of such public meetings by

placing a notice in the Federal Register, by publication of

timely notices in newspapers of general circulation within

the State being evaluated, and by communications with

persons and organizations known to be interested in the

evaluation. Each evaluation shall be prepared in report

form and shall include written responses to the written

comments received during the evaluation process. The

final report of the evaluation shall be completed within

120 days after the last public meeting held in the State

being evaluated. Copies of the evaluation shall be immediately provided to all persons and organizations participating in the evaluation process.”
	

Chapter 35 – Endangered Species

Sec. 1535. Cooperation with States: “...provision is made

for public participation in designating resident species of

fish or wildlife as endangered or threatened; provision is

made for public participation in designating resident

species of plants as endangered or threatened.”

Chapter 36 – Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning

Subchapter 1 – Planning

Sec. 1600. Congressional findings: “...to serve the national

interest, the renewable resource program must be based on

a comprehensive assessment of present and anticipated

uses, demand for, and supply of renewable resources from

the Nation’s public and private forests and rangelands,

through analysis of environmental and economic impacts,

coordination of multiple use and sustained yield opportunities as provided in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act

of 1960, and public participation in the development of

the program.”

Sec. 1601. Renewable Resource Assessment: “In developing reports ... the Secretary shall provide opportunity for

public involvement and shall consult with other interested

governmental departments and agencies.”

Sec. 1604. National Forest System land and resource management plans: “The Secretary shall provide for public

participation in the development, review, and revision of

land management plans including, but not limited to,

making the plans or revisions available to the public at

convenient locations in the vicinity of the affected unit for

a period of at least three months before final adoption,

during which period the Secretary shall publicize and hold

public meetings or comparable processes at locations that

foster public participation in the review of such plans or

revisions.”

Sec. 1611 Timber: “Plans for variations in the allowable

sale quantity must be made with public participation as

required by section 1604(b) of this title.”

Sec. 1612. Public participation: “In exercising his authorities under this subchapter and other laws applicable to the

Forest Service, the Secretary, by regulation, shall establish

procedures, including public hearings where appropriate,

to give the Federal, State, and local governments and the

public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment

upon the formulation of standards, criteria, and guidelines

applicable to Forest Service programs.” “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 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.” “In accordance with

this section, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through

the Chief of the Forest Service, shall establish a notice

and comment process for proposed actions of the Forest

Service concerning projects and activities implementing

land and resource management plans developed under the

Forest and Rangeland Resources Planning Act of 1974

and shall modify the procedure for appeals of decisions

concerning such projects.” “Prior to proposing an action

referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary shall give notice

of the proposed action, and the availability of the action

for public comment by (A) promptly mailing notice about

the proposed action to any person who has requested it in

writing, and to persons who are known to have participated

in the decisionmaking process; and (B)(I) in the case of an

action taken by the Chief of the Forest Service, publishing

notice of action in the Federal Register; or (ii) in the case

of any other action referred to in subsection (a), publishing

notice of action in a newspaper of general circulation that

has previously been identified in the Federal Register as

the newspaper in which notice under the paragraph may

be published. (2) Comment – The Secretary shall accept

comments on the proposed action within 30 days after

publication of the notice in accordance with paragraph (1).

(c) Right to Appeal – Not later than 45 days after the date

of issuance of a decision of the Forest Service concerning

actions referred to in subsection (a), a person who was

involved in the public comment process under subsection

(b) through submission of written or oral comments or by

otherwise notifying the Forest Service of their interest in

the proposed action may file an appeal. (d) Disposition of

an Appeal. – (1) Informal disposition. – (A) In general;. –

Subject to subparagraph (B), a designated employee of the

Forest Service shall offer to meet with each individual

who files and appeal in accordance with subsection (c) and

attempt to dispose of the appeal. (B) Time and location of

the meeting. – Each meeting in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall take place – (I) not later than 15 days after

the closing date for filing an appeal; and (ii) at a location

designated by the Chief of the Forest Service that is in the

vicinity of the lands affected by the decision. (2) Formal

review. – If this appeal is not disposed of in accordance

with paragraph (1), an appeals review officer designated

by the Chief of the Forest Service shall review the appeal

and recommend in writing, to the official responsible for

deciding the appeal, the appropriate disposition of the

appeal. The official responsible for deciding the appeal

shall then decide the appeal. The appeals review officer

shall be a line officer at least at the level of the agency

official who made the initial decision on the project or

activity that is under appeal, who has not participated in



the initial decision and will not be responsible for implementation of the initial decision after the appeal is decided.

(3) Time for disposition – Disposition of appeals under

this subsection shall be completed not later than 30 days

after the closing date for filing of an appeal, provided that

the Forest Service may extend the closing date by an additional 15 days. (4) If the Secretary fails to decide the

appeal within the 45-day period, the decision on which the

appeal is based shall be deemed to be a final agency action

for the purpose of chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.

(e) Stay – Unless the Chief of the Forest Service determines

that an emergency situation exists with respect to a decision of the Forest Service, implementation of the decision

shall be stayed during the period beginning on the date of

the decision – (1) for 45 days, if an appeal is not filed, or

(2) for an additional 15 days after the date of the disposition of an appeal under this section, if the agency action is

deemed final under subsection (d)(4).”

Chapter 40 – Soil and Water Resources Conservation

Sec. 2004. Continuing appraisal of soil, water, and related

resources: “Appraisal shall be made in cooperation with

conservation districts, soil and water conservation agencies, and other appropriate citizen groups, and local and

State agencies under such procedures as the Secretary may

prescribe to ensure public participation.”

Chapter 51 – Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation

Subchapter V – Federal-State Cooperation

Sec. 3181. Alaska Land Use Council: “Cooperative agreements established pursuant to this section shall include a

plan for public participation consistent with the guidelines...” “The Council shall establish and implement a public participation program to assist the Council to carry out

its responsibilities and functions under this section. Such

program shall include, but is not limited to – (1) A committee of land-use advisors appointed by the Cochairmen

made up of representatives of commercial and industrial

land users in Alaska, recreational land users, wilderness

users, environmental groups, Native Corporations, and

other public and private organizations. To the maximum

extent practicable, the membership of the committee shall

provide a balanced mixture of national, State, and local

perspective and expertise on land and resource use issues;

and (2) A system for (A) the identification of persons and

communities, in rural and urban Alaska, who or which may

be directly or significantly affected by studies conducted,

or advice and recommendations given by the Council pursuant to this section, and (B) guidelines for, and implementation of, a system for effective public participation by

such persons or communities in the development of such

studies, advice, and recommendations by the Council.”

Chapter 54 – Resource Conservation

Subchapter V – Resource Conservation

Sec. 3452. Definitions: “The term ‘planning process’ means

the continuous effort by any State, local unit of government, or local nonprofit organization to develop and carry

out effective resource conservation and utilization plans

for a designated area, including development of an area

plan, goals, objectives, policies, implementation activities,

evaluations and reviews, and the opportunity for public

participation in such efforts.”

Chapter 63 – Federal Cave Resources Protection

Sec. 4303. Management actions: “... foster communication, cooperation, and exchange of information between

land managers, those who utilize caves, and the public.”

Chapter 71 – Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management

Sec. 5104. State implementation of coastal fishery management plans: “... the Commission provides adequate

opportunity for public participation in the plan preparation

process, including at least four public hearings and procedures for the submission of written comments to the

Commission.”

Chapter 80 – Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation

Sec. 6106. Cooperation: “(A) Meetings – The advisory

group shall – (I) ensure that each meeting of the advisory

group is open to the public; and (ii) provide, at each meeting, an opportunity for interested persons to present oral

or written statements concerning items on the agenda.

(B) Notice – The Secretary shall provide to the public

timely notice of each meeting of the advisory group. (c)

Minutes – Minutes of each meeting of the advisory group

shall be kept by the Secretary and shall be made available

to the public.”

TITLE 33 - NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE

WATERS

Chapter 26 – Water Pollution Prevention and Control

Subchapter I – Research and Related Programs

Sec. 1251. Congressional declaration of goals and policy:

“Public participation in the development, revision, and

enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan, or program established by the Administrator or

any State under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.

The Administrator, in cooperation with the States, shall

develop and publish regulations specifying minimum

guidelines for public participation in such processes.”


Subchapter III – Standards and Enforcement

Sec. 1329 Nonpoint source management programs:

“...describes the process, including intergovernmental

coordination and public participation, for identifying best

management practices...”

Chapter 27 – Ocean Dumping

Subchapter I – Regulation

Sec. 1414b. Ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste: “The Administrator shall provide an opportunity for public comment regarding the establishment and

implementation of compliance agreements and enforcement agreements entered into pursuant to this section.”

Chapter 29 – Deep Water Ports

Sec. 1509. Marine environmental protection and navigational safety: “subject to ... and the provision of adequate

public involvement, the Secretary shall prescribe and

enforce procedures.”

Chapter 36 – Water Resources Development

Subchapter V – General Provisions

Sec. 2319. Reservoir management: “The Secretary shall

ensure that, in developing or revising reservoir operating

manuals of the Corps of Engineers, the Corps shall provide

significant opportunities for public participation, including

opportunities for public hearings.”

TITLE 43 – PUBLIC LANDS

Chapter 12 – Reclamation and Irrigation of Lands by

Federal Government

Subchapter I-A – Reclamation Reform

Sec. 390jj. Water Conservation: “The Secretary is authorized and directed to enter into memorandums of agreement

with those Federal agencies having capability to assist in

implementing water conservation measures to assure coordination of ongoing programs. Such memorandums should

provide for involvement of non-Federal entities such as

States, Indian tribes, and water user organizations to assure

full public participation in water conservation efforts.”

Chapter 35 – Federal Land Policy and Management

Subchapter I – General Provisions

Sec 1702. Definitions: “The term ‘public involvement’

means the opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rulemaking, decisionmaking, and planning with

respect to the public lands, including public meetings or

hearings held at locations near the affected lands, or

advisory mechanisms, or such other procedures as may

be necessary to provide public comment in a particular

instance.”

Subchapter II – Land Use Planning and Land Acquisition

and Disposition

Sec 1712. Land use plans: “The Secretary shall, with

public involvement and consistent with the terms of this

act, develop, maintain and when appropriate, revise land

use plans...” “the Secretary ... shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government

officials.” “The Secretary shall allow an opportunity for

public involvement and by regulation shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to

give Federal, State, and local governments and the public

adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and

participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of public lands.”

Subchapter III – Administration

Sec. 1739. Advisory councils: “In exercising his authorities

under this Act, the Secretary, by regulation, shall establish

procedures, including public hearings where appropriate,

to give the Federal, State, and local governments and the

public adequate notice and an opportunity to comment

upon the formulation of standards and criteria for, and to

participate in, the preparation and execution of plans and

programs for, and the management of, public lands.”


The full text of Indicator 51 is as follows: Extent to which

the legal framework (laws, regulations, guidelines) supports

the conservation and sustainable management of forests,

including the extent to which it encourages best-practice

codes for forest management (Montreal Process Working

Group 2003)

Rationale and Interpretation

Forest management practices that are well designed and

properly applied are fundamental to the sustainability of

forest resources. At all levels (stand, landscape, local,

regional, national, global), forests depend on the application

of forest practices that are capable of ensuring sustained

use, management, and protection of important social,

economic, and biological values. Exploitive or destructive

forest practices may lead to short-term financial or social

gains, but they may also cause temporary or irreparable

harm to ecological and biological processes in forests and

ultimately decrease long-term social and economic welfare.

Well-founded best-practice codes, and the forest management practices required by such codes, can ensure sustained

forest productivity for market goods, protection of ecological values, and protection of the various social, cultural,

and spiritual values offered by forests. Such codes and

practices can be among the most important tools for

responding to national trends and conditions involving

forests (Cubbage and Moffat 1997, Montreal Process

Working Group 2003, Montreal Process Technical

Advisory Committee 2000).

Useful data for measuring Indicator 51 are compilations

and descriptions of laws and programs at national and

subnational levels that require the establishment of appropriate practices and harvesting activities, specification of

practices and harvesting activities to be applied, and

designation of the programmatic means by which such

practices are to be delivered to landowners and timber

harvesters (for example, fiscal incentives, technical assistance, regulations and ordinances). Similarly useful in

describing this indicator are the compilation and description of processes that encourage monitoring of the rate at

which these practices are actually being applied and, when

appropriate, updated (Montreal Process Technical

Advisory Committee 2000).

Concepts and principles that are to be identified and

addressed are suggested by the indicator. For the purposes

of this review best-practice codes can be defined as a set

of forest management or harvesting standards (benchmarks,

yardsticks, touchstones, measures, criteria) that foster

sustainable management of forests for various values and

benefits. Best practices are also referred to as best management practices, forest-practice guidelines, forest practice

rules, acceptable practices, and management ordinances.

To encourage codes is to promote the development of

best-practice codes (through leadership, organization,

funding) and their subsequent application in response to

various types of programs (for example, educational, technical assistance, fiscal incentives, tax incentives, regulatory

programs).

Conceptual Background

Typically, best-practice codes are summations of various

forest practices considered to be technically, economically,

and politically acceptable for achieving certain desired

conditions of forest sustainability. Their development by

public and private agencies usually involves a collaborative process whereby the final sets of best practices are

those that produce sustainable forest conditions and, to the

extent possible, meet the biological, economic, and social

objectives of those engaged in their development. Although

initially developed in response to concern over nonpoint

forest sources of water pollutants, codes have been developed for nearly all forest practices (for example, roads,

pesticides, reforestation, prescribed fire) that are important

to the attainment of values associated with forests, such as

wildlife, recreation, wetlands, timber, and aesthetic beauty.

Best-practice codes have been developed and implemented

by a large number of public and private organizations. The

diversity of these organizations has often resulted in the

production of a variety of best management codes that

reflect the interests and requirements of the sponsoring

organizations. In some cases such codes are well coordinated, but in other cases they may be in direct conflict.

Privately developed and implemented codes of forest

practices include the Sustainable Forestry Initiative of the

American Forest and Paper Association (2001a) and the

forest certification program of the Forest Stewardship

Council (1999). Although some private initiatives have

occurred, government organizations, in response to various

legal mandates, have been the most active force in pursuing

the development and application of best-practice codes.

1 Ellefson, Professor, and Hibbard, Research Specialist, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Best-Practice Codes for Forest Management (Indicator 51)

Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard1


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responding to

requirements of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act and the Coastal Zone Management

Act of 1972, has been and continues to be a major stimulus

in the development of best management practices, especially those developed by State governments. Similarly,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed bestpractice codes focused on wildlife values, and the USDA

Forest Service has developed best management practices

for forestlands that are part of the National Forest System

(Anderson 2000).

Ultimately, the usefulness of best-practice codes depends on

the extent to which they are applied by forest landowners

and timber harvesters. In some cases, voluntary acceptance

and application of codes is the primary approach to securing their use. Landowner and harvester goodwill and sense

of stewardship toward forests is considered the only motivation necessary to accomplish the application of appropriate forest practices. On their own initiative, groups of

timber harvesters, nonindustrial private landowners, and

industrial timberland owners may band together to develop,

adopt, and apply best-practice codes. In certain situations,

however, government may need to play a major role.

Uninformed or misinformed landowners and harvesters

may require information provided by educational initiatives

(often provided by State Extension Service programs) or

technical assistance programs (provided individually by

public or private service foresters) if they are to apply

best-practice codes. Government-sponsored fiscal and tax

incentives may also be necessary where landowners and

harvesters lack the financial resources needed to apply

best-practice codes. And where landowners and harvesters

are not persuaded of the necessity to apply certain forest

practices that are considered essential to sustaining important forest values, a regulatory or mandatory approach has

been found necessary.

Best-practice codes and the programs that foster their

implementation are dynamic systems that require careful

monitoring. Such monitoring can be most useful in determining whether more aggressive delivery of good practices via more or better organized programs is necessary,

or whether there are technical problems (such as obsolescence or ineffectiveness) with the forest practices recommended in the best-practice code. Compliance monitoring

and effectiveness monitoring have been a key component

of most private and public initiatives involving best-practice codes. Some States have conducted six or more cycles

of compliance monitoring over a period of 10 to 12 years

(National Association of State Foresters 2001).

Current Legal Capacity

Private Sector Capacity

Private organizations representing a variety of interests in

sustaining forests have developed and implemented codes

of best practices for forest management. Adopted by various forest certification programs, these codes of best forest

practices clearly demonstrate the capacity of the private

sector to assume responsibility for ensuring the sustainability of forests and the communities that are dependent

upon them. The motives for their development and implementation are many, and include improving the performance of forest management activities and the strengthening

of the credibility and public acceptance of forestry in

general. A significant aspect of all private certification

efforts is that they represent voluntary, nonregulatory

approaches to the promotion of improved forest practices

and forest management systems. Certification of a forest

implies that the management practices being applied meet

approved standards of a designated authority (Society of

American Foresters 1999).

There are more than 25 nongovernmental forest certification programs worldwide plus a number of governmental

efforts to develop criteria and indicators of sustainable

forest management. Best-practice codes are frequently the

most visible on-the-ground expression of sustainable forest

management (Confederation of European Paper Industries

2000, Society of American Foresters 1999).2

 In the United

States, five major nongovernmental certification programs

recommending best practices for forest management have

gained considerable attention (table 1). Although the best

practices recommended by these programs can differ substantially in content, all programs have standards that in

some way address such subjects as planning, management,

reforestation, forest operations, special places, pesticides,

product utilization, fish and wildlife, and soil and water

resources. Programs typically set forth sets of best-practice principles or objectives within which participants are

given substantial flexibility to develop more exacting

practices considered appropriate to specific resource, economic, and political settings (American Forest and Paper

Association 2001a, 2001b; Forest Stewardship Council

2000). The exact nature of the practices being applied in

response to these principles has not yet been compiled in a

2 Examples of international certification programs and activities are the

International Standards Organization (ISO) 14001 Environmental

Management System (especially ISO TR 14061), Pan-European Forest

Certification, Alliance of World Wide Fund for Nature and World Bank,

World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Center for

International Forestry Research, and programs in various countries,

including Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark,

Finland, France, Ghana, Indonesia, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway,

Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (Confederation of

European Paper Industries 2000, Society of American Foresters 1999).
 Table 1—Nongovernmental forest certification programs promoting best-forest-practice standards, by program characteristic (1999)

Forest Certification Program

Environmental Management

Program Sustainable Forestry Forest Stewardship Systems: Forestry Green Tagcharacteristic Initiative Program Council Program ISO 14000: TC 201 Tree Farm Program Forestry ProgramSponsor American Forest and Forest Stewardship International Standards American Forest National Forestry

Paper Association Council Organization Foundation Association (NFA) and(AF&PA) National Woodland

Owners Association

Mission Promote commitment Improve forest Provide standardized means Ensure sustainable Promote landowner

to sustainable forestry practices through by which companies can forests by providing land- recognition of

and the measures by market-based address environmental owners with information responsibility forwhich the public can mechanisms impacts of their activities and voluntary verifica- sustainable woodlandmeasure this tion of sustainable management

commitment forest practices

Eligible parties AF&PA members Interested forest Organizations involved in Owners of 10 or more NFA members

landowners environmental management acres of forestland

Forest practice Principles: use Principles: comply with Principles: give environmental Principles: broaden Principles: promotestandard key responsible forest laws, establish clear management high priority, practice of sustainable forest sustainability byprinciples practices, protect forest tenure to land, respect communicate externally, forestry; communicate sound management

health and productivity, indigenous peoples’ comply with laws and rules, to and involve public; involving planning, treeprotect special forest rights, enhance well- assign responsibility for prudently use harvesting, roadsites, continuously being of workers and environmental management, chemicals; reforest construction, skidding,improve practice of communities, ensure promote environmental harvested lands; post-harvest evaluations,forest management wide range of environ- planning, establish manage for quality product utilization,

mental and social bene- performance discipline, water, wildlife, chemical applications,fits, conserve biological evaluate performance, aesthetics, special community anddiversity, develop forest establish audit systems, sites, and biodiversity employee relations,management plans, encourage vendors to economic viability, andmonitor forestry activi- establish environmental recordkeeping

ties, conserve natural management systemsforests, and plan environmentally for plantations

Forest practice Voluntary verification Third-party audits First-, second-, or third- Third-party audits Third-party auditsstandard audits or second- and third- party audits

party audits

Source: Adapted from Society of American Foresters (1999).


comprehensive sense, nor has the effectiveness of the

practices been addressed by long-term research activities.

The administration of certification programs varies considerably. Some are directly involved in encouraging the

application of best-practice codes (Sustainable Forestry

Initiative, Green Tag Forestry Program), while others are

international bodies that accredit certification organizations. An example of the latter is the Forest Stewardship

Council which (as of 1999) has accredited two national

certifiers in the United States, namely Scientific Certification Systems and SmartWood (a program of the Rainforest

Alliance), which work through various regionally based

organizations. The best-practice codes developed by these

regional organizations are required to be consistent with

the Forest Stewardship Council’s 10 principles of forest

sustainability. The Green Tag Forestry Program sets forth

principles of best forest practices, and then engages the

services of foresters who are members of the Society of

American Foresters to guide their application to forests

owned by participating landowners. The ISO certification

process does not specify principles of best forest practices,

but instead allows their development and adoption by

organizations seeking certification (Society of American

Foresters 1999).

The best-practice standards promoted by programs certifying sustainable forest management conditions are useful to

the extent they are actually applied in a forest setting.

Except in certain limited cases, information about their

ability to actually achieve principles of forest sustainability

is limited. However, the acreage of forestland enrolled by

the programs in the United States in 1999 is substantial.

These programs include the Sustainable Forestry Initiative

Program (56.5 million acres), American Tree Farm

Program (85 million acres), Forest Stewardship Council

Program (4.6 million acres), and Green Tag Forestry Program (2,100 acres) (Society of American Foresters 1999).

As interest in encouraging best practices by the use of

certification programs continues to grow, the number and

sophistication of such programs grow also. The changing

conditions created by this evolutionary process pose special challenges to identifying, compiling, and measuring

the ability of privately initiated certification programs to

encourage the use of best-practice codes (Cook and

O’Laughlin 1999). The certification system worldwide has

yet to determine who the major organizational players will

be and what set of comprehensive codes they will advocate as most useful for accomplishing sustainable forestry

objectives. The information management task implied by

this endeavor is lessened in some cases by the periodic

status reports issued by some sponsoring organizations (for

example, American Forest and Paper Association 2001a,

Forest Stewardship Council 1999).

Federal Government Capacity

A number of Federal laws and associated Federal rules and

administrative directives represent a significant capacity to

influence forest practices applied on public and private

forestland (table 2). Of the 16 Federal laws listed in the

table, all but 3 rely indirectly on State governments to

develop and implement best management practice codes

that are considered important to the achievement of certain

national interests in forests. These laws typically require

State actions that favor the establishment of forest-practice

codes to be implemented in various State-selected ways

(for example, the Clean Water Act required programs for

controlling nonpoint-source pollution; the Coastal Zone

Management Act required the adoption of enforceable

best-practice codes). In nine of the Federal statutes identified, Federal law directly promotes or limits the application of certain practices on all forest ownerships (for

example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act states

conditions for felling and skidding; the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act states conditions for pesticide application in wetlands). Only three of the Federal

statutes identified call for best-forest-practice codes to be

developed specifically for Federal lands (for example, the

National Forest Management Act states conditions for

growing and harvesting timber in national forests). Most

best-practice codes of Federal agencies are included in the

land management plans that guide the use and management

of Federal public lands.

The following are more detailed examples of laws that authorize the Federal Government to establish and encourage

the application of forest practices considered necessary to

sustain forests (Brown and others 1993; U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service 1993; West Publishing 1997).

Direct prescriptions—

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: Requires

the establishment and implementation of workplace safety

and health standards. As examples, the safety standards (or

best practices) cover felling, bucking, limbing, loading,

skidding, road and bridge building, and the use of explosives. Federal administrative responsibility for rule promulgation and enforcement rests with the U.S. Department of

Labor.

Endangered Species Act of 1973: Requires prevention of

the extinction of endangered species of flora and fauna,

and authorizes regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species.

Where necessary for the conservation and survival of such

species, recovery plans are to be developed that include

site-specific management actions as may be necessary to

achieve a plan’s goal. Certain harmful actions are prohibited


outright; these include actions that result in significant

habitat modification or that harass, harm, kill, trap, or

involve collection of endangered or threatened species of

fish and wildlife. Federal administrative and enforcement

responsibility for the act rests with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National Marine and Fisheries

Service.

National Forest Management Act of 1976: Requires the

preparation of land and resource management plans for

national forests and requires that such plans include (as

examples) guidelines ensuring that timber is harvested

only where soil, slope, or watershed conditions will not be

irreversibly damaged; there is assurance that lands can be

adequately restocked within 5 years after harvest; protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines,

lakes, and wetlands; and cut blocks, patches, or strips are

shaped and blended with natural terrain. Federal administrative authority for the act rests with the Forest Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976:

Requires the preparation of land-use plans for Federal

public lands (land administered by the Bureau of Land

Management) that ensure that the use and management of

such lands shall be in compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including air, water, noise, and other

pollution-control standards or plans; and will minimize

adverse impacts on the natural, environmental, scientific,

cultural, and other resources and values (including fish

and wildlife habitats) of the public lands involved. Federal

administrative authority for the act rests with the Bureau

of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Indirect prescriptions—

Clean Water Act of 1987 (amendments to Federal Water

Pollution Control Act): Requires States to prepare a nonpoint-source management program, specifically to identify

waters that require action to control nonpoint sources of

pollution, to identify nonpoint sources that add significant

Table 2—Federal statutes requiring development and application of best-forest-practice standards, by resource focus

and landowner application

Federal statutory requirements for

application of forest-practice code

Major forest Direct Federal Direct Federal Indirect State

(or related) application application action

resource of only to to all for code

Federal statute concern Federal land forestland development

Clean Air Act of 1990 Air X X

Clean Water Act of 1987 Water X X

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Comprehensive X

Endangered Species Act of 1973 Fish and Wildlife X X

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (as amended 1996) Comprehensive X X

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 Comprehensive X

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 Fish and Wildlife X

National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 Recreation X

National Trails System Act of 1968 Recreation X X

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act of 1966 (amended 1997) Fish and Wildlife X

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Comprehensive X X

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890 Water X X

Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 Comprehensive X

Superfund Act of 1980 Comprehensive X X

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation

Act of 1977 Comprehensive X

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 Recreation X X

Note: Superfund Act of 1980 is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act includes the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard for the distribution and use of pesticides.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1993), and West Publishing (1997).


pollutants, and to develop plans for identifying best management practices and measures to control each category

and subcategory of nonpoint sources. Federal administrative

responsibility for the act rests with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. Enforcement of the nonpoint-source

plans is a State responsibility.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972: Requires States

to develop plans to implement economically achievable

measures for the control of nonpoint sources of pollutants

originating in designated coastal regions of the United

States. Forest management measures include preharvest

planning, streamside management, road construction and

reconstruction, site preparation, fire management, revegetation of disturbed areas, and wetland management. States

must implement these measures by means of enforceable

policies and mechanisms. Federal administrative responsibility rests with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Enforcement of the plans is a State responsibility.

Clean Air Act of 1990: Requires each State to develop a

plan that provides for implementation, maintenance, and

enforcement of air quality standards in each air quality

control region within its boundaries. Implementation

involves establishing practices that will prevent significant

deterioration of air quality (including visibility) in and

near national parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas.

Smoke management plans address prescribed burning

practices. Although major administrative and enforcement

responsibility rests with the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, States are responsible for administering State

plans.

State Government Capacity

State governments also have significant legal frameworks

for encouraging the development and implementation of

forest practice codes. In 2001, all States had some form of

forest practice code, and 60 percent of these codes had

been revised one or more times since 1994. The practices

set forth by these codes were being applied to forests at a

rate of 86 percent (National Association of State Foresters

2001). Many state forest practice codes were established

in response to federal laws that require implementable and

enforceable programs focused on the water quality impacts

of forest practices, although most now address a variety of

forest values and the forest practices used to enhance or

protect such values. The State-developed codes focused

primarily on private forests, although many apply to Stateowned public forests (some even to federal lands, although

jurisdictional disagreements are common) (Ellefson and

others 1995).

State governments have the capacity to direct forest practice codes on a variety of forest values and to implement

the codes in a variety of programmatic ways (table 3). In

1992, State-adopted best forest practices focused on water

quality, reforestation, timber harvesting, forest protection,

wildlife protection, recreation, and aesthetic qualities.

Most of the guidelines developed to address these values

were delivered via technical assistance programs (28 percent of total program applications), with broader educational and extension programs a close second (27 percent).

Other program types employed were fiscal incentives (15

percent of applications), voluntary guidelines (13 percent),

regulatory (11 percent), and tax incentives (6 percent).

State forestry agencies are unlikely to rely on a single type

of program to deliver their forest-practice codes. For

example, educational and technical assistance programs

were used by 46 and 47 States, respectively, to protect

water quality, yet 34 States also used voluntary guidelines

and 28 States employed regulatory measures for such

purposes.

The number and type of State agencies engaged in the

development of forest-practice codes is substantial. In the

year 2000, nearly 1,000 State government entities (departments, divisions, bureaus, governing boards) were engaged

in some form of forest resource management activity that

may very likely lead to the development of codes specifying the best forest management practices to be applied by

public and private landowners and timber harvesters

(Ellefson and others 2001a and 2002). These State agencies

ranged from those with traditional resource conservation

and management responsibilities (forests, wildlife, parks,

recreation, water), to agencies that have broader environmental and public health responsibilities that might be

influenced by forest practices. The capacity of those agencies to foster development and implementation of forestpractice codes rests in large measure on the variety of

State laws the agencies are responsible for implementing.

State laws applicable to forestry nonpoint-source pollution

in 2001 included forest practice and conservation laws

(11 States), lake and stream protection laws (27 States),

wetland protection laws (23 States), stream crossings laws

(23 States), sediment and erosion control laws (29 States),

chemical use laws (15 States), persistent problem person

(bad actor) laws (12 States), and storm water laws (10 States)

(National Association of State Foresters 2001). In implementing these laws, extensive partnering (for example,

sharing of knowledge and expertise) occurs among State

agencies on matters involving codes of best management

practices. In 2001, 32 States reported forestry agencies

partnering with a State’s environmental protection agency,

38 reported such partnering with a State’s water quality

agency, and 24 reported such partnering with a State’s fish

and wildlife agency (National Association of State

Foresters 2001).


Table 3—State government programs promoting best-forest-practice standards on private forests,

by forestry activity, region, and type of program (1992)

Number of States in region having program type Major forestry

activity and North- Mid- Mid- South- South Great Rocky

type of program east Lake Atlantic continent east Central Plains Mtns. West Total

Protect water quality

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 46

Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 5 5 5 6 5 47

Voluntary guidelines 5 3 6 4 5 5 1 4 1 34

Tax incentives 1 1 4 3 0 1 3 1 0 14

Fiscal incentives 2 3 5 3 1 4 5 4 2 29

Regulatory programs 6 1 5 1 4 1 0 2 6 26

Promote reforestation

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 6 5 4 5 6 46

Technical assistance 6 3 6 5 6 5 5 6 4 46

Voluntary guidelines 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 1 15

Tax incentives 2 3 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 16

Fiscal incentives 5 2 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 37

Regulatory programs 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 6 14

Improve timberharvesting methods

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 4 5 5 6 45

Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 6 5 5 6 4 47

Voluntary guidelines 4 2 6 1 3 3 2 4 2 27

Tax incentives 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 9

Fiscal incentives 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 2 1 13

Regulatory programs 4 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 6 17

Protect from wildfire,

insects, and diseases

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 47

Technical assistance 6 3 7 4 6 5 4 6 6 47

Voluntary guidelines 3 0 3 1 2 3 2 4 2 20

Tax incentives 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 6

Fiscal incentives 1 1 4 2 1 0 2 4 2 17

Regulatory programs 5 2 3 1 3 2 1 4 6 27

Protect wildlife and

endangered species

Educational programs 6 3 7 5 6 5 4 5 5 46

Technical assistance 5 3 6 5 6 5 5 5 4 44

Voluntary guidelines 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 18

Tax incentives 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3

Fiscal incentives 3 2 5 3 2 4 5 2 2 28

Regulatory programs 4 2 2 0 3 1 1 2 5 20

Enhance recreation

and aesthetic qualities

Educational programs 6 3 6 4 5 5 4 5 3 41

Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 5 5 5 6 3 45

Voluntary guidelines 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 16

Tax incentives 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 8

Fiscal incentives 4 1 6 2 2 4 2 3 1 25

Regulatory programs 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 8

Note: Regional groupings of States are Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT; Lake States: MI, MN, WI; Mid-Atlantic: DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV;

Mid-Continent: IL, IN, KT, MO, OH; Southeast: AL, FL GA, MS, NC, SC; South Central: AR, LA, OK, TN, TX; Great Plains: IA, KS, NB, ND, SD;

Rocky Mountain: AZ, CO, MT, NM, UT, WY; West: AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA.

Source: Ellefson and others (1995).
	

State capacity to encourage the use of forest practice codes

often depends on informed landowners and professionally

astute timber harvesters and professional resource managers

(foresters, wildlife managers). In 1995, 25 States had active

registration, certification, or licensing programs for timber

harvesters (MacKay and others 1996). Of this total, six

States had licensing programs requiring persons conducting timber harvesting activities to demonstrate, by written

or field examinations, an informed ability to do so. In

nearly all cases, an understanding of a State’s code of best

forest practices was the basis for granting a license. In

2001, 26 States reported certification programs for timber

harvesters, and 13 States reported some form of licensing

of professional foresters (National Association of State

Foresters 2001).

State capacity to develop and encourage the application of

best forest practice codes is substantial. In addition, States

have demonstrated considerable ability to monitor the rate

at which such codes are being applied. In 1997, 34 States

conducted compliance monitoring programs to determine

whether the codes were being applied (table 4) (Ellefson

and others 2001b). Although nearly one-third of the States

had not initiated a formal compliance monitoring program,

this does not mean that forest practices are not monitored

in those States. In some States, monitoring activities

(inspections) are carried out when landowners benefit

from cost-share practices (such as the Federal Forestry

Incentives Program and Stewardship Incentives Program)

or when formally designated Tree Farms are reinspected.

In States where forestry operations are by law incomplete

until approved by an inspector, the required preharvest and

post-harvest inspections are considered to be compliance

monitoring. Legislative directives often compel compliance

monitoring. Montana requires determination of “how current forest practices are affecting watersheds,” Minnesota

requires “a program for monitoring silviculture practices

and the application of timber harvest and forest management guidelines,” and Washington requires “annual assessment of how regulations and voluntary processes are

working.” (Ellefson and others 2001b).

Forest practices most commonly monitored by States are

those focused on water quality, riparian areas, and forested

wetlands (table 5). In 2000, the results of monitoring were

found to be used in a variety of ways, including modification

of education and training programs (23 States), targeting

of technical assistance programs (20 States), modification

of existing guidelines (11 States), and development of

additional guidelines (12 States) (National Association of

State Foresters 2001). In 1997, the lead (or traditional)

State forestry agency was the only agency engaged in

monitoring compliance with recommended best forest

practices in only 20 States (Ellefson and others 2001b).

Table 4—Characteristics of State programs monitoring compliance with best-forestpractice standards, by region (1997)

Region

Monitoring characteristic North South West Total

- - - - - - - - - number of States - - - - - - - - -

Compliance monitoring program:

Yes 11 13 10 34

No 9 0 7 16

Compliance monitoring conducted:

All harvested sites 2 2 4 8

Sample of harvested sites 9 12 5 26

Certain sites more intensely 4 2 7 13

Training required to participate in monitoring 10 11 7 28

Incentive provided private landowner to access

property 2 0 1 3

Individual landowner compliance information

made public 5 7 9 21

Note: Compliance monitoring may be focused on forest-practice guideline programs that are voluntary, mandatory, or

both. Nationally, 13 States have compliance monitoring programs that are part of a voluntary practice program (North: 4;

South: 8; West: 1); 9 are part of a mandatory program (North: 3; South: 1; West: 5); and 12 involve both voluntary and

mandatory programs (North: 4; South: 4; West: 4). (North Region: CT, DL, IA, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NH,

NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WV, WI; South Region: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA; West Region:

AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, NB, ND, NM, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY.)

Source: Ellefson and others (2001b).



Compliance monitoring of forest-practice guidelines has

occurred over a number of years in some States. In the

South, for example, some States have conducted five or

more statewide compliance monitoring surveys, and have

often found rates of compliance with recommended best

management practices exceeding 90 percent (Greis 2002).

Compliance rates for southern States were as follows:

• Alabama (6 statewide surveys, 93 percent compliance)

• Arkansas (2 statewide surveys, 1999 last survey,

80 percent compliance)

• Florida (10 statewide surveys, 1999 last survey,

96 percent compliance)

• Georgia (3 statewide surveys, 1998 last survey,

79 percent compliance)

• Kentucky (1 statewide survey, 35 percent compliance)

• Louisiana (4 statewide surveys, 1997 last survey,

83 percent compliance)

• Mississippi (1 statewide survey, 87 percent compliance)

• North Carolina (2 statewide surveys, 1996 last survey,

95 percent compliance)

• Oklahoma (monitoring program under development)

• South Carolina (5 statewide surveys, 1997 last survey,

90 percent compliance)

• Tennessee (2 statewide surveys, 1996 last survey,

63 percent compliance)

• Texas (4 statewide surveys, 1999 last survey, 89 percent

compliance)

• Virginia (10 statewide surveys, 1999 last survey,

90 percent compliance)

Local and Regional Government Capacity

Local units of government have significant capacity to

develop and implement forest-practice codes. Hickman

and Martus (1991) identified nearly 400 local ordinances

nationwide regulating forestry practices. Of these ordinances, more than 70 percent were established since 1980

and half since 1985. Martus and others (1993) identified

522 local ordinances regulating forestry activities in 24

States, with 68 percent of them in northeastern States and

27 percent in southern States. In 1996, there were more

than 100 local ordinances directing the application of

forest practices in New York alone. As of 2000, county and

municipal governments in 10 of the 13 southern States had

enacted a total of 346 forest-related ordinances (Georgia

and Virginia account for one-half of the total), which is a

marked increase from 7 States and 141 ordinances in 1992

(Spink and others 2001). Some State forest-practice laws

prohibit or severely restrict local governments from regulating forest practices. Oregon’s Forest Practices Act is

quite specific in this respect: “. . . no unit of local government shall adopt any rules, regulations or ordinances or

take any other actions that prohibit, limit, regulate, subject

to approval or in any other way affect forest practices on

forestland.” Idaho and Washington also restrict local

governments from the development of forest-practice

codes and their implementation via regulatory means.

The magnitude of local development of forest-practice

codes can be better judged in the context of the total number of local political jurisdictions within a State that could

possibly adopt best-practice codes and subsequently

encourage their implementation. By State, local jurisdictions having such guidelines were as follows: Colorado: 3

of 63 counties; Delaware: 1 of 3 counties; Florida: various

of 57 counties; Georgia: 11 of 159 counties; Illinois: 100

of 1,200 municipalities and 1 of 102 counties; Louisiana:

1 of 64 parishes; Maryland: 20 of 23 counties; Michigan:

10-15 of 1,200 townships; Minnesota: 1 of 87 counties;

New Jersey: 300 of 567 municipalities and 15 of 21 counties; New York: 70 of 900 municipalities; North Dakota:

7 of 53 counties; Pennsylvania: 13 of 420 municipalities;

Vermont: 2 of 251 municipalities; and Wisconsin: 3-4 of

1,500 municipalities and 2 of 72 counties (Ellefson and

others 1995). Expanding this information to a nationwide

setting, in 1991 about 8 percent of all local jurisdictions

had some form of forest-practice guidelines embraced by a

regulatory program (the proportion probably would have

been higher if nonregulatory initiatives had been considered) (Ellefson and others 1995).

Table 5—Forest resource values subject to State

government monitoring of best-forest-practice

standards, by region (1997)

Region

Subject area North South West Total

- - - - - - - number of States - - - - - - -

Water quality 11 13 9 33

Riparian 10 11 9 30

Wetland 9 8 7 24

Soil productivity 1 5 7 13

Wildfire, insects

and diseases 3 1 9 13

Aesthetics 4 3 5 12

Wildlife habitat 2 1 8 11

Reforestation 3 1 6 10

Cultural-historic

resources 2 0 3 5

Recreation 2 0 2 4

Other 1 3 5 9

Source: Ellefson and others (2001b).


Summary of Conditions

Forestry and related agencies in the United States have

recognized the importance of codes that embody best

forest practices. Well-designed forest-practice codes, the

use of which is actively encouraged, are often critical to

ensuring the sustainability of forest resources. In light of

the background and current conditions presented above,

the following observations are made about the legal

capacity to develop and implement such codes:

• Best-practice codes represent a summation of technically effective, economically wise, and politically

palatable forest practices considered necessary for sustaining forest conditions and values. They are identified

by a variety of terms or labels, including best management practices and forest practice guidelines. They are

most often developed in response to a legal requirement.

• Best-practice codes are applied in order to sustain forests

generally and to ensure the sustainability of a variety of

important forest values and benefits. However, the legal

capacity to develop codes has usually been exercised in

response to concerns over the quality and quantity of

water flowing from forested areas.

• Legal capacity to develop and implement best-practice

codes exists among many different types of public and

private organizations, with government organizations at

various levels being among the more active proponents

of the development and implementation of such codes.

• Application of codes by landowners and timber harvesters is encouraged by legal capacities expressed as a

variety of programs, including those involving education, technical assistance, tax incentives, fiscal incentives, and regulatory requirements. In most cases, a

mixture of different types of programs has proven to

be most effective. Regulatory programs focused on

privately owned forests continue to be controversial.

• Management practices are monitored so that the effectiveness of best management practice codes can be

assessed and rates of application can be determined.

The information obtained by monitoring is used to

improve programs that encourage the use of forest-practice codes and to delete, add, or modify best management practices to make the codes more capable of

sustaining desired forest values.

• Federal agencies have significant legal capacity to

develop and promote best-forest-practice codes for

direct application to Federal lands and in some cases to

nonfederal lands. Directed by extensive legal frameworks, these agencies also encourage State governments

to develop and promote the use of best-forest-practice

codes (usually by required assessments and the encouragement of the adoption of enforceable mechanisms).

• State government legal capacity to develop and implement codes of best management practices is also very

extensive. This capacity is expressed via a number of

program types, most common of which are voluntary

participation by landowners and timber harvesters.

Often in response to Federal incentives, States have also

been very active in monitoring the use of codes of best

management practices.

• Local units of government exercise legal capacity

(ordinances) to develop and implement codes of best

management practices. This capacity is highly variable

in form and in the degree to which it is exercised.

• Private organizations are active in the development and

implementation of best-practice codes. Codes developed

and implemented by private organizations are generally

part of forest certification programs and are usually

designed to advance the interests of the organizing

parties. Certification programs are becoming increasingly common, involve sophisticated best-practice

standards, and are being applied to ever-larger areas of

forestland.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues and

trends involving best management codes and actions taken

to encourage their use. Examples of this literature (from

which the following issues and trends are drawn) are: Brown

and others 1993, Cubbage and Moffat 1997, Dissmeyer

1994, Ellefson and others 1995, Ellefson and others 2001a,

Hickman and Martus 1991, Ice and others 1997, Martus

and others 1993, Mater 1999, National Association of

State Foresters 2001, and Spink and others 2001.

• Legal frameworks supporting best management codes

for forest management have been strengthened in recent

decades with the establishment of a large number of

Federal laws and regulations that directly or indirectly

influence the forest practices of public and private landowners. State-initiated programs that legally mandate or

regulate the manner in which forest practices may be

applied have increased both in number and intensity

during the past three decades. Local government laws

and regulations have also grown significantly.

• The number of government agencies involved in the

development and implementation of codes of best management practices for forestry has increased dramatically over the past three decades. In most cases, each

agency’s involvement is grounded in its responsibility

for a single forest value (for example, air, water, wildlife), a situation that poses significant challenges to

coordination within and among governments and to the

understanding of different sets of codes by landowners

and timber harvesters.


• Educational and technical assistance programs are

increasing in intensity and sophistication, enabling landowners and timber harvesters to become more aware of

and sensitive to the importance of codes of best forest

practices. These programs take many forms, including

registration and certification of timber harvesters,

licensing of forestry professionals, and certification of

forest property by private organizations that have

developed standards of forest sustainability.

• The complexity of the codes that set forth best management practices, and the accompanying increase in

the cost of applying the recommended or required practices, is increasingly straining landowner and timber

harvester acceptance of such codes and the willingness

to apply them. This is so even though educational and

technical assistance efforts have made landowners and

timber harvesters more and more aware of the existence

and virtues of the codes.

• Regulatory programs that require the application of

codes of forest practices, especially State government

programs, continue to be controversial, but they have

increased in number, scope, and sophistication over the

past three decades. Within a regulatory framework,

specific trends and issues include increasing specification of best management practices in law (rather than in

administrative rules), growing use of collaborative

approaches to rulemaking and program implementation,

the increased challenge of coordination among different

government regulatory jurisdictions (for example, State

and Federal jurisdictions) responsible for forest-practice

codes, and development of contingent regulations that

provide enforcement authority when voluntary compliance with recommended forest practices does not occur.

• Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Load Limit

rules and criteria aimed at further reducing nonpointsource water pollutants is increasingly of concern to the

Federal and State agencies responsible for developing

and encouraging the use of codes of best management

practices. Among specific issues are definitions of

impaired waters, the legal status of silvicultural sources

(point versus nonpoint sources), and interagency disagreements about the importance of different sources of

water pollutants and how they should be addressed (for

example, forests versus agriculture).

• Monitoring the effectiveness of best management practices is becoming increasingly more common and more

sophisticated. Challenges posed to monitoring the effect

of forest practices on water quality are increasingly being

overcome, yet monitoring the impacts of forest practices

on many other forest values (for example, biological

diversity, forest aesthetics) continues to pose challenges.

The results of monitoring are becoming more widely

used as a tool to encourage the use of best management

practices and to improve the development of codes that

embody more technically sound forest practices.

• Increasingly innovative approaches to developing and

encouraging the use of codes of best forest practices are

appearing on the scene. They are often considered as

alternatives to allegedly costly and cumbersome regulatory programs. Included among newer approaches are

green certification or stewardship programs, industrysponsored certification programs (for example, the

Sustainable Forestry Initiative), cost-share payments,

preferential property and State income tax treatments,

technical assistance and extension activities, and conservation easements and land trusts that embody best

management practices for forestry.

Information Adequacy

Specification

Information about codes of best management practices and

their application has been the focus of attention of many

public and private organizations. In 1999, the National

Association of State Foresters (1999) sought a better understanding of State forestry agency information concerning

codes of best management practices. The Association

reported 9 States with abundant information concerning

best-practice codes, 16 with sufficient information, and the

remainder with very little or no information to describe

such codes. As for the quality of information about bestpractice codes, 15 States reported it was excellent, 15 that

it was adequate, and 4 that it was poor. The Association

has also conducted periodic surveys seeking information

about the design, application, and monitoring of best management practices being implemented by State governments (National Association of State Foresters 2001).

The American Forest & Paper Association (American

Forest & Paper Association 1993), National Council of the

Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI

1994, 1995, 1996), Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech 1992), and

the Environmental Law Institute (Environmental Law

Institute 1997, 1998) have also made concerted efforts to

collect information about codes of best management practices. Various research organizations have undertaken

analyses to determine the status of best-practice codes and

of the programs that are being used to encourage their

application (Brown and others 1993, Ellefson and others

1995, Green and Siegel 1994, Hickman and Martus 1991,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001). The World

Wide Web provides access to current State-by-State compilations of best management practices and forest-practice

codes (for example, Water Quality and Best Management

Practices for Loggers at http://www.usabmp.net).


Given the seemingly wide variety and large number of

efforts that have been made to compile information about

legal and related structures that promote best-practice

codes, a logical conclusion might be that an ample supply

of information has been accumulated and that informed

judgments can be made about legal capacities to establish

best-practice codes and focus them in positive ways on

forest sustainability. This may be true in the aggregate, but

it masks the existence of very serious information shortcomings. For example, current information about bestpractice codes is seldom capable of describing the changing legal conditions within which codes are developed and

implemented (very little effort has been made to coordinate compilations and analyses over time), and is not

always comprehensive or capable of being aggregated and

usefully summarized (compilations and analyses are randomly undertaken and typically focused on particular

programs, forest values, and selected geographic areas

such as some, but not all, States). Available information

also often lacks a concerted focus on the effectiveness of

current legal structures and the programs they promote

(their actual ability to exert influence on sustainability

goals is largely unknown). More specifically, information

voids of the following types are common:

• Measurement information—Information about which

variables should be measured and how they should be

measured, so as to accurately portray conditions involving codes of best management practices, has not been

assembled. What conditions should be measured and

subsequently compiled (for example, compliance rates,

area of forest covered, number of landowners engaged,

forest value focused on by code)? What variables are

the best indicators that agreed-to standards of sustainable forest management are being achieved? How often

are these variables to be measured? Are special measurement needs associated with different best-practice

codes?

• Extent-of-activity information—Information about the

legal requirements to develop and encourage application

of best-practice codes has been assembled in an often

uncoordinated way. This has resulted in the collection

of information that depicts only current conditions, lacks

local, regional, and national consistency, and fails to

portray the role being played by private initiatives.

What are the legal requirements for developing and

encouraging the application of best-practice codes at

various geographic levels and by various organizations?

How are these requirements changing over time, if at

all? Are there differences in requirements at different

levels of government? Is there consistency across these

requirements? Are there legal and constitutional issues

at stake between governments? What is the status of

locally developed codes and efforts to encourage their

application? To what extent do these activities occur in

the private sector? Are compilations as currently carried

out useful for guiding policy and program direction?

• Responsible-organization information—Only very

limited information about which private and public

organizations are actively engaged in the development

and implementation of best management codes has been

assembled. What government agencies are engaged in

code development and implementation and at what

levels are they engaged? What legal authority assigns

them responsibility, and is this authority being interpreted accurately? Do public and private organizations

engaging in code development have similar or differing

goals and objectives, and do these goals and objectives

foster or hinder code development and implementation?

What has prompted private organizations to engage in

code development and implementation? Are there

organizational patterns in the public and private sector

that, if known and publicized, would enhance overall

application of code development and implementation?

• Coordination information—Information about requirements to coordinate development and implementation of

best-practice codes among and between various levels

of government and various private concerns has not

been assembled. Do conflicts exist between the various

entities engaged in developing and implementing codes

of best management practices? If so, how might they be

productively resolved? What are the requirements for

coordination? Do they allow for cross-sectoral, coordinated planning and review? Do they ensure that the

cumulative results of local, State, and regionally developed codes will lead to outcomes consistent with

national requirements and vice versa? Do they allow

incorporation of ad hoc code development activities

occurring at various times and undertaken at various

levels of government?

• Procedure and specification information—Information

about how best-practice codes are to be developed and

encouraged has not been assembled. Do current statutory requirements prescribe procedures for code development and implementation? Are these in a detailed format

or in a broad framework giving deference to administrators and rulemaking procedures? Is the full intent of the

existing laws that address codes and means for their

encouragement expressed in current codes of forest

practices? Do national requirements for codes allow for

regional and subregional development of such codes?

Do requirements specify the need for leadership in their

development? Do they give guidance to such leadership?

• Scope-of-practice information—Information about bestpractice codes for values in addition to water have not

been comprehensively assembled. What best management-practice codes have been developed for the range

of values associated with forests, in addition to water


quality? What approaches have been used to encourage

development and application of this broader range of

practices? What legal requirements mandate development of best management practices for the broad range

of values associated with forests? Do these legal requirements differ among agencies at the same level of government and between levels of government? Are these

differences complementary or competitive? Are there

barriers to developing best management practice codes

in addition to those focused on water? If so, how might

they be overcome?

• Investment-and-incentive information—Information

about resources devoted to best practice code development and implementation has not been assembled except

in some very limited cases. What is the magnitude of

investment in public and private code development and

implementation activities? Are there legal and administrative processes for allocating resources to these activities and are they sufficient? Are there legal or fiscal

provisions for encouraging these activities, and especially for encouraging cross-sectoral code development

and implementation activities?

• Encouragement-and-promotion information—Information about the appropriateness of various programmatic

ways of encouraging the application of codes of best

management practices has been compiled for only a few

States and regions. What are the type and frequency of

programs that might be used to encourage application of

best management practices contained in codes? What

are the relative efficiency and effectiveness of these

approaches in fostering BMP application by landowners

and timber harvesters? Are certain categories of landowners and timber harvesters more responsive to certain

types of programs? What is the appropriate scale and

administrative design for successful implementation of

a program? What types of programs tend to reward

application of desirable practices rather than punish

undesirable practices?

• Effectiveness information—Information about the effectiveness of best-practice codes in accomplishing sustainable forestry objectives has not been compiled except in

some very limited cases. Are there legal or administrative requirements to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of these codes? What are appropriate measures

of success? Are there more effective approaches to

accomplishing code development and implementation?

• Monitoring information—Monitoring of the application

and effectiveness of codes of best management practices, and especially of forest practice effectiveness, has

been carried out by a number of organizations (especially State governments) but could be improved. Are

there legal requirements to monitor the results of applying codes of best management practices? Is this information from monitoring activities being used to adapt

codes to changing circumstances? Is the information

being collected and analyzed in such a way that it can

be used to fulfill legal requirements assigned to an

agency? Are compliance surveys or audits statistically

well designed? Are the results of various monitoring

efforts capable of being accumulated to portray sound

representations of conditions at the landscape, regional,

and national levels? What is being done to monitor

administrative processes used to manage best-practice

codes? How accurately are practices actually being

measured? Is the information robust and truly reflective

of actual conditions?

Recommendations

The ability to influence forest sustainability will depend a

great deal on consistent, long-term application of bestpractice codes for forest management as suggested by

Indicator 51. In order to improve the legal setting for this

application, we must address a variety of information

voids. In order to suitably deal with these voids, the

following actions would seem appropriate:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews—Conduct periodic and

comprehensive reviews of current authorities that give

direction to and resources for the design, implementation, and monitoring of best-practice codes for forest

management. Guided by the above-suggested information deficiencies, the reviews should give special attention to the collection of information concerning the

types of best-practice codes, the organizations that

implement such codes, the compliance rates for current

owners, and the effect of the codes on desired forest

values. This information should be gathered at Federal,

State, and local levels of government. In addition, a

systematic review of private-sector capability to carry

out these activities should be initiated.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews—Assign responsibility for conducting continuous reviews of best management codes to a specific current or new administrative

unit within a Federal agency (such as a USDA Forest

Service State and Private Forestry unit or Research and

Development unit), a college or university, or other nonprofit organization (for example, the National Association of State Foresters or the National Council of the

Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement). This

responsibility should be assigned to an organization that

has a proven track record in addressing the complexities

of developing, implementing, and applying best-forestmanagement codes to public and private forests.

• Devote resources to reviews—Invest in the reviews

sufficient resources to provide the type and quantity of

information necessary to dramatically improve understanding of current abilities to develop and apply bestforest-management codes considered important to

sustainable forestry.


Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

Unclear definitions of the activities specified by Indicator

51 are troublesome, especially the elusiveness of the

Indicator’s major descriptive words and phrases, such as

“encourages” and “best-practice codes.” These words or

phrases supposedly embody an agreed-to set of concepts

and principles around which information-gathering efforts

can take place. Such is not always the case, as is highlighted

by the need to define “encourages” and “best-practice

codes” earlier in this review. The former is taken to mean

conditions promoting the development of codes (leadership, organization, funding) and their application via one

or more types of programs (for example, educational,

technical assistance, fiscal incentives, tax incentives,

regulatory), while the latter is viewed as a set of management or harvesting standards (benchmarks, yardsticks,

touchstones, measures, criteria) that foster sustainability

of forests for various values.

Lacking a clear understanding and definition of Indicator

51 makes the exercise of determining legal capacity to

“encourage best-practice codes for forest management”

difficult at best and makes the products of such compilations of questionable value. Rigorous attention to definitions would enable analysts to clearly focus attention on

questions such as: Do we have the capacity to establish

codes, and, once established, how is their application

programmatically encouraged? Compounding the definition

problem is the reality that many researchers, analysts, and

administrators consider “codes” to be synonymous with

legal regulations, and regard “best practices” equivalent to

best management practices (BMPs), forest-practice guidelines, or acceptable practices. We suggest that the use of

the word “code” in the context of forest practices is very

much out of date and quite misleading. A more appropriate

specification of the Indicator would be “. . . encourages

the application of the best forestry practices considered

suitable for specific forest conditions.”

Relationship to Other Indicators

Indicator 51 overlaps other indicators, particularly as they

relate to laws and values, public participation, funding,

and planning. Clearly, there is potential for confusion in

Indicator 51’s relationship to Indicators 38 (value of investment), 54 (planning and coordination), 57 (enforce laws,

regulations, and guidelines), 58 (investment in forests),

60 (information and data), 61 (forest inventories), 62

(foreign country monitoring), 63 (scientific understanding),

64 (value integrative methods), 65 (new technologies), and

66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited

American Forest and Paper Association. 1993. State forest practices

throughout the United States: a review of forest laws, practices acts,

and best management practices. Washington, DC: American Forest &

Paper Association. [Not paged].

American Forest and Paper Association. 2001a. Sustainable Forestry

Initiative Program sixth annual progress report. Washington, DC:

American Forest and Paper Association. 25 p.

American Forest and Paper Association. 2001b. Sustainable Forestry

Initiative standard: principles and objectives. http://www.afandpa.org/

Content/NavigationMenu/Environment_and_Recycling/SFI/

The_SFI_Standard/The_SFI_Standard.htm. [Date accessed: September

2001].

Anderson, S. 2000. A short history of best management practices. Paper

presented at Oregon Society of American Foresters; annual meeting,

2000 May 19; Durham, NC: Forest History Society. [Not paged].

Brown, T.C.; Brown, D.; Binkley, D. 1993. Laws and programs for

controlling nonpoint pollution in forest areas. Water Resources Journal.

29(1):1-13.

Confederation of European Paper Industries. 2000. Comparative matrix

of forest certification schemes. Brussels, Belgium: Confederation of

European Paper Industries. 16 p.

Cook, P.S.; O’Laughlin, J. 1999. Toward sustainable forest management:

certification programs (P I). Report 18. Moscow, ID: University of

Idaho, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. 174 p.

Cubbage, F.W.; Moffat, S.O. 1997. Criterion seven, indicator 51: a review

and discussion. Unpublished document, available from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 25 p.

Dissmeyer, G.E. 1994. Evaluating the effectiveness of forestry best

management practices in meeting water quality goals or standards.

Misc. Pub. 1520. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. [Not paged].

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.S. 1995. Regulation of private

forestry practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Kilgore, M.A.; Phillips, M.J. 2001b. Monitoring compliance

with BMPs: experience of State forestry agencies. Journal of Forestry:

99(1):11-17.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001a. Programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: an

assessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape of

State government. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department

of Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of State

agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry: 100(6):35-42.

Environmental Law Institute. 1997. Enforceable State mechanisms for

control of nonpoint source water pollution. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. 59 p.

Environmental Law Institute. 1998. Almanac of enforceable State laws to

control nonpoint source water pollution. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. 293 p.


Forest Stewardship Council. 1999. Status of national and regional certification initiatives. Doc. 4.3.3. http://www.fscoax.org./principal.html.

[Date accessed: August 2001].

Forest Stewardship Council. 2000. FSC principles and criteria. Doc. 1.2.

http://www.fscoax.org/principal.htm. [Date accessed: August 2001].

Green, J.L.; Siegel, W.C. 1994. The status and impact of State and local

regulation on private timber supply. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-255. Ft.

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station. 22 p.

Greis, J.G. 2002. Water and wetlands: southern forest resource assessment. Journal of Forestry: 100(7):42-45.

Hickman, C.A.; Martus, C.E. 1991. Local regulation of private forestry

practices in the eastern United States. In: Proceedings: 1991 annual

meeting of Southern Forest Economics Workers. Baton Rouge, LA:

Louisiana State University, Department of Forestry: 73-90.

Ice, G.G.; Stuart, G.W.; Waide, J.B. and others. 1997. Twenty-five years

of the Clean Water Act: how clean are forest practices? Journal of

Forestry: 95(7):9-13.

MacKay, D.G.; Ellefson, P.V.; Blinn, C.R. 1996. Registration, certification

and licensing: creating better timber harvesters. Journal of Forestry:

94(7):27-31.

Martus, C.E.; Haney, H.L.; Siegel, W.C. 1993. Preliminary impact of local

government forestry-related ordinances affecting harvesting in the

eastern United States. In: Wear, D.N., ed. Policy and forestry: design,

evaluation, and spillovers. Proceedings, 1993 annual meeting: Southern

Forest Economics Workers. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 138-146.

Mater, C.M. 1999. Understanding forest certification: answers to key

questions. DP-3-99. Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 35 p.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and

indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process.

Http:www.mpci.org/ [Date accessed: February 2002].

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation

assessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date

accessed July 2001].

National Association of State Foresters. 2001. State nonpoint source

pollution control programs for silviculture. http://www.stateforesters.org/

reports/NONPOINT%20REPORT.htm. [Date accessed: August 2001].

NCASI. 1994. Southern regional review of State nonpoint source control

programs and best management practices for forest management

operations. Tech. Bull. 686. Research Triangle Park, NC: National

Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement. 152 p.

NCASI. 1995. Western States nonpoint source program review. Tech.

Bull. 706. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council of the Paper

Industry for Air and Stream Improvement. 101 p.

NCASI. 1996. Northcentral States nonpoint source program review. Tech.

Bull. 710. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council of the Paper

Industry for Air and Stream Improvement. 62 p.

Society of American Foresters. 1999. Report of task force on forest

management certification programs. http://www.safnet.org/policyand

press/fmcp199.cfm. [Date accessed: June 2001].

Spink, J.J.; Haney, H.L.; Greene, J.L. 2001. Survey of local forestryrelated ordinances and regulations in the South. In: Pelkki, M.H., ed.

Hardwoods: an underdeveloped resource? Proceedings: 2000 annual

meeting of Southern Forest Economics Workers. Monticello, AR:

Arkansas Forestry Center: 41-46.

Tetra Tech. 1992. Summary of State manuals of forestry best management

practices. Fairfax, VA: Tetra Tech, Inc. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. The principal laws

relating to Forest Service activities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1,163 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National management

measures to control nonpoint source pollution from forestry. Nonpoint

Source Control Branch. February. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. [Not paged].

West Publishing Company. 1997. Selected Federal environmental law

statutes. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 1,398 p.


Information Review and Evaluation:

Institutional Framework

	

The full text of Indicator 53 is as follows: Extent to which

the institutional framework supports the conservation and

sustainable management of forests, including the capacity

to provide for public involvement activities and public

education, awareness, and extension programs, and make

available forest-related information (Montreal Process

Working Group 2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

A well-informed and knowledgeable citizenry provides a

foundation of support for successful, sustainable forest

management. Such support is dependent on access to legal

and institutional conditions capable of promoting the

organizations and programs necessary to inform the public

about forest resource sustainability, and then to engage the

public in decisions regarding resource sustainability. To do

this requires recognition that different groups of citizens

have different information needs (for example, elementary

school children, high school students, forest landowners,

and timber harvesters need different kinds of information).

It also requires recognition that such information can be

communicated in many ways (for example, by written and

electronic media, and by classroom and field instruction).

Further, it requires awareness of the surprising number of

public and private organizations that are both able and

willing to communicate needed information (for example,

environmental organizations, trade organizations, environmental education foundations, federal and State extension

services) (Montreal Process Working Group 2003, Montreal

Process Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Brief definitions of three concepts that are central to Indicator 53 are: provide for public education and awareness—

provide access to information enabling the general public

to be aware of and take responsible actions regarding concepts of forest sustainability; provide for extension programs

—provide access to educational initiatives (and methods)

implemented by various partnering organizations seeking

to meet the forest sustainability information needs of various audiences (Reed and others 1997); and make available

forest and related information—provide access to professionally guided, technical forestry assistance focused on the

on-site information needs of individual landowners, managers, and operators (for example, timber harvesters and

private woodland owners) (Sampson and DeCoster 1997).

Indicator 53 suggests the review of a very broad spectrum

of material. In order to facilitate the review undertaken

herein, certain subjects are excluded. For example, the

indicator refers to providing opportunity for public involvement activities, but this subject is not discussed here

because the legal and institutional capacity for public

involvement in the decisionmaking process is addressed in

depth in our discussion of Indicator 50 (opportunities for

public participation). Also, this review does not discuss

capacity to educate professional resource managers, a

subject that is discussed in connection with Indicator 55

(develop and maintain human resource skills).

Useful data for measuring Indicator 53 include compilations and descriptions of laws and programs that promote

public education on matters concerning forest sustainability and conservation. Examples of useful information

are number of full-time-equivalent employees assigned to

relevant extension, public education, and environmental

education programs; number of schools (grades K through

12) with active educational programs relevant to sustainable forestry; number of school districts with defined

curricular standards for teaching about forest resource

sustainability; number of forest landowners and timber

harvesters who attend outreach education programs

focused on sustaining forest resources; number of plans

prepared and implemented as a consequence of technical

forestry assistance to landowners; and number of periodicals and web sites providing information about forest

resource sustainability (Montreal Process Technical

Advisory Committee 2000).

Conceptual Background

An informed citizenry and knowledgeable owners and managers of forests are central requirements for the sustainability of forest resources. If citizens, owners, and managers

are well informed, they will in all likelihood have expectations that are consistent with the sustainability of forest

resources and will take actions individually and collectively that are compatible with principles of sustainability.

The great breadth and amount of existing knowledge about

forest resources, and the great range of potential audiences

for information about forests pose significant challenges

for educational programs. It is also necessary to consider

what organizations should be responsible for presenting

educational information about the sustainability of forest

1 resources. Ellefson, Professor, and Hibbard, Research Specialist, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Public Education and Extension (Indicator 53)

Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard1



The recipients (or targets) of educational activities differ

in their informational needs. These recipients range from

the members of the general public who have only a perfunctory interest in forest resources to landowners who

seek advice about protecting forests from a particular

species of destructive insect. The information sought can

be very general (such as information about who owns

forests and why they desire ownership) or very specific

(such as advice about designing roads and skid trails for

timber harvesting operations). Information can be communicated to intended audiences in a variety of ways—possibly

in publications, videos, and films, and by means of satellite communication, workshops, formal lectures, or the

like. And educational activities can take place in different

settings, including the K through 12 classroom, longdistance learning via satellite, and hands-on experience in

a demonstration forest.2

Educational initiatives involving forest resource sustainability are undertaken by an extremely diverse set of

public and private organizations. Nearly every Federal

agency has some responsibility to inform the public or

segments thereof about conditions that affect forests. The

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to implement the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 is

an example, as is the longstanding involvement of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture in extension programs guided

by statutes such as the Morrill Act of 1862, the Smith-Lever

Act of 1914, and the Renewable Resources Extension Act

of 1978. State governments have statutory requirements

and programs that often mirror Federal laws and programs

in both the breadth of subject material addressed and the

number of agencies engaged in conveying such material.

A most notable educational and extension partnership

involves State governments, local governments, and land

grant universities. Private organizations also present great

numbers of educational programs, many of which address

forest sustainability. The National Wildlife Federation and

the Audubon Society are prominent examples of private

organizations with strong environmental education

initiatives.

Educational efforts aimed at informing citizens, landowners,

and managers about principles of forest sustainability must

convey an appropriate message. Because information can

be used to further a set of preferred values regarding forest

sustainability, many organizations are extremely sensitive

to the need to provide “factual” or “value-neutral” information to audiences. Their credibility, and in some cases

their very existence as an organization, is dependent on

avoiding bias or prejudice in the information they provide.

Certainly, such organizations are generally free to make

their case; information and arguments presented by opposing organizations will frequently set the record straight.

Again, most organizations seek to present value-neutral

information that can be used by the public, landowners, and

managers when making individual or collective decisions

about forest sustainability.

Current Institutional Capacity

The Nation’s institutional capacity to offer educational

experiences focused on forest and related resources is

represented by the involvement of many different public

and private organizations. Unfortunately, a systematic and

comprehensive review of the totality of this capacity has

never been undertaken. Such a review would require

attention to State, local, and tribal governments; nongovernmental organizations; universities, colleges, and schools;

Federal Government; business, industry, and foundations;

and various types of media. The following is a brief

examination of the capacity represented by some of these

organizations.

Private-Sector Capacity

Private-sector capacity to undertake public education, extension, and technical assistance efforts is extensive. More

than 80 private national organizations claim responsibility

for educational initiatives that focus on an extremely wide

range of audiences, with forest resource messages that are

equally diverse in substance and method of delivery

(appendix A). The private sector has the capacity to

distribute information about forests via more than 180

different periodicals that in some manner address public

and professional interests in the sustainability of forests

(appendix B). Internet Web sites offer similar potential.

At this time, the extent and intensity of private involvement in educational and technical assistance programs can

be suggested only by examples. The programs are many

and varied, but most involve partnering between and among

various public and private groups that have an interest in

public education on matters involving forest sustainability.

Examples of programs currently being implemented are:

the Tree Farm System (American Forest Foundation—

2

 Environmental education can be communicated by means of formal education or informal education. Formal education takes place in traditional

and highly structured settings—typically in elementary and secondary

schools, colleges, and universities. Formal environmental education initiatives directed at students in elementary and secondary schools (grades

K-12) commonly involve curriculum development and the provision of

supplementary educational materials. Formal post-secondary educational

initiatives may focus on technical career preparation, preservice teacher

education, and professional continuing education. Informal environmental

education occurs outside or beyond formal education systems, possibly

on an ad hoc basis, and is often sponsored by businesses, government

agencies, nonprofit organizations, and the media (newspapers, magazines,

television, and computer networks) (U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency 1996).


70,000 properties and 20 million forest acres); forest

owners associations (National Woodland Owners Association—42,000 landowners and 3.4 million forest acres);

industry landowner assistance programs (approximately

7 million forest acres); landowner cooperatives (approximately 20 cooperatives in the Midwest and Northeast);

cross-boundary initiatives (such as the Applegate Partnership [Oregon], Gulf Coastal Ecosystem Partnership

[Mississippi], and Monadnock Landscape Partnership

[New Hampshire and Massachusetts]); land trust and

conservation easement partnerships (such as the Land Trust

Alliance, Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy,

and Conservation Fund); stewardship forestry organizations

(such as the Institute for Sustainable Forestry [California]

and the Mountain Association for Community Economic

Development [Kentucky]); K-12 student education (such

as Project Learning Tree [more than 600,000 K-12 educators and more than 40 million students since 1980], Project

WILD, and Project WET; the National Environmental

Education Enhancement Project (nearly 20 States encouraged and guided by private-interest groups partnering with

government resource and environmental agencies); associations and interest groups (such as the North American

Association for Environmental Education, National Wildlife

Federation [Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program], National

Audubon Society, Society of American Foresters [Walk-inthe-Forest Program], and Sierra Club [Adopt-a-Watershed

Program]); and foundations (the Pew Charitable Trusts,

Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and American Forest Foundation) (American Forest Foundation 1993, Best and Wayburn

2001, Siegel 1993, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Service 1997, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1966).

Private educational initiatives are also significant elements

of various privately sponsored forest certification programs.

The intent of the educational element of these programs is

to inform private forest landowners about principles of

sustainable forest management and to encourage the application of forest management practices that are consistent

with these principles. Various organizations sponsor certification programs that are generally similar in the broad

standards they set forth for forest sustainability, but vary in

terms of the specific practices required to meet such standards. Examples of private organizations sponsoring certification programs are the Forest Stewardship Council

(Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship), American

Forest and Paper Association (Sustainable Forestry Initiative), American Forest Foundation (Tree Farm Program),

and National Woodland Owners Association (Green Tag

Program) (Mater 1999).

Federal Government Capacity

Federal agencies have substantial legal authority and

institutional capacity to undertake educational programs

focused on forest sustainability. At least 19 Federal laws

authorize such programs, and at least 7 of these laws

appear to be focused primarily on forests (for example,

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978), while 5 are

basically enabling statutes that authorize educational programs in general (for example, the first and second Morrill

Acts of 1862 and 1890) (table 1). The other statutes identified here focus primarily on agriculture and conservation

education (three) and environmental education in general

(for example, the National Environmental Education Act

of 1990), yet they represent significant potential for

encouraging better understanding of the sustainability of

forest resources. In summary, legal authority for Federal

agencies to establish and implement education programs

focused on forest resource matters does not appear to be

wanting.

Federal programs that represent institutional capacity for

education relevant to forest sustainability are numerous

and varied (appendix C). At a minimum, there are nearly

120 programs implemented by at least 5 cabinet-level

departments or agencies (more than 50 in the Department

of Agriculture, 3 in the Department of Commerce, 1 in the

Department of Energy, more than 10 in the Department of

the Interior, and nearly 40 in the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency). These programs vary in mission,

scope, and education delivery vehicle, but all have some

educational element relevant to forest resource sustainability. Some are purely educational and informational

(for example, the National Agricultural Library or the

National Technical Information Service), while others are

oriented toward research, development, and promotion (for

example, the Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems program). Some programs are actually combinations of many other programs (for example, the Forest

Taxation Program), and may have multiple objectives

ranging from regulation and enforcement to direct on-site

resource management. The budgets associated with these

programs range from a few hundred thousand dollars to

hundreds of millions of dollars. The programs accomplish

their mission via various delivery mechanisms, such as the

dissemination of technical information, the provision of

specialized services, regulatory and directive methods,

advisory services and counseling, training and education,

and capacity-building grants. Without question, Federal

educational programs relevant to forest sustainability are

very far-reaching and present a wide range of significant

information (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002).

Public education—Broad segments of the general public

are often unaware of or misinformed about the use, management, and protection of forests. However, it seems

clear that there is substantial virtue in communicating to

the public the important role that forests play in our lives.

If this information is communicated, the public may gain a


heightened awareness of forests, treat them with greater

respect, and encourage investment in their sustainable

management. Unfortunately, much of the forestry community’s focus is on immediate and highly visible political

issues involving forests, with only minimal attention

directed to the general public’s need for a more basic

understanding of forests and forest sustainability (Best and

Wayburn 2001). Many existing Federal laws explicitly or

implicitly authorize educational programs that have a

general educational component.

No comprehensive assessment of Federal forestry educational programs focused on the general public has been prepared, although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

has made various attempts to do so (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency 1996). Therefore, Federal capacity for

educating the public will be illustrated by reference to the

following examples:

• Natural Resources Conservation Education Program

(NRCEP)—The NRCEP is a joint effort of the USDA

Forest Service and National Association of State

Foresters. The program seeks to increase awareness,

knowledge, and appreciation of natural resources and

ecosystems, help develop the critical thinking skills

needed to recognize the complexity of resource issues

and make realistic choices, and encourage individual

responsibility for conserving natural resources and using

them wisely. NRCEP funds are used mainly to work with

partners to jointly fund conservation education projects

throughout the United States. A national program that is

implemented locally, NRCEP funds environmental education projects, strengthens partnerships between funded

organizations, and collaborates on local projects. Other

sponsors and partners include the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, National Environmental Education

Training Foundation, National Forest Foundation,

Table 1—Federal statutes authorizing major public educational programs involving forests and related natural

resources (2002)

Major focus of educational efforts authorized by statute

Primarily Primarily

forests and agriculture and Primarily Primarily

related conservation environmental enabling

natural (including (including and

Federal statute resources forests) forests) authorizing

Morrill Act (first 1862; second 1890) X

Hatch Act (1887) X

Smith-Lever Act (1914) X

Clarke-McNary Act (1924) X

Bankhead Jones Act (1935) X

Norris-Doxey Cooperative Farm Forestry

Act (1937) X

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (1948 as amended) X

Clean Water Act (1948 as amended) X

Smokey the Bear Act (1952) X

Clean Air Act (1955 as amended) X

McIntire-Stennis Act (1962) X

Youth Conservation Corps (1970) X

Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972) X

Rural Development Act (1972) X

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (1978) X

Renewable Resources Extension Act

(1978, 1988, 1990) X

Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation

Act (1980) X

Forest Stewardship Act (1990) X

National Environmental Education Act (1990) X


American Forest Foundation, several agencies within

the Department of the Interior, the Natural Resources

Conservation Service, and a host of local and State

organizations (Best and Wayburn 2001, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1994, 1997).

• Project Learning Tree (PLT)—This national, not-forprofit, environmental education program is funded by

State boards of education, private companies, professional associations, individual donations, and State and

Federal agencies. The program seeks to improve by

educational means public understanding of natural

resource issues in order to promote public participation

in decisionmaking processes involving natural resources.

PLT works with more than 50,000 teachers each year in

partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency

and the National Environmental Education Advancement

Project. Complementary to PLT are Project WET

(focused on water and related resources) and Project

WILD (focused on wildlife conservation; since its

inception in 1980, Project Wild has engaged more than

600,000 educators and more than 40 million students).

Although all three projects relate to natural resource

issues, PLT focuses more directly on forests (Best and

Wayburn 2001, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 1994, 1997).

• National Environmental Education Advancement Project

(NEEAP)—The NEEAP seeks to implement and shape

environmental education programs by serving as a

conduit between environmental education leaders and

their counterparts in other States, and between state and

national organizations and expertise. Organizations participating as partners in the program include the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation, North American Association for

Environmental Education, National Association of Conservation Districts, and National Wildlife Federation.

NEEAP provides leadership clinics, workshops, seed

funding, informational services, and networking opportunities for participating States (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency 2002).

• North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE)—This is a consortium program funded by

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (approximately $2 million annually) and coordinated with a wide

range of public and private organizations. The association

focuses on information dissemination, education reform

and innovation through training, and the expansion of

partnerships. The consortium is an active sponsor of

projects such as the National Conservation Training

Center, the North American Association for Environmental Educators, the National Water Education for

Teachers (WET) Project, and the North American

Association for Environmental Education (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency 2002).

• Environmental Education Outreach Program (EEOP)—

Administered by the USDA Forest Service, EEOP is a

summer environmental education program taught by

student interns. The program’s major objectives are to

meet with youth from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic

backgrounds; to identify their concerns and knowledge

about natural resources and the environment; to expose

young people from inner-city areas to information about

the environment, natural resources, and careers in

natural resources; and to identify appropriate approaches

for outreach to and education of youth of diverse ethnic,

socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds (Best and

Wayburn 2001, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 1994, 1997).

• Environmental Education Grants Program (EEGP)—

Administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s Office of Environmental Education, the program provides grants for the purpose of enhancing the

public’s awareness, knowledge, and skills needed to

make informed decisions that affect environmental

quality. Since 1992, the Office has received between $2

million and $3 million in grant funding per year and has

awarded about 1,700 grants, mostly to K-12 school

programs. Many of these programs focus on forest and

related resources (for example, Friends of Urban Forests

—California; Forest Wildlife Information Center—

Pennsylvania; Project Learning Tree—New Hampshire;

Meet the Wilderness—Colorado; Natural Resources

Education Council—North Carolina). In addition to

EEGP, the Office also administers the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF),

which encourages public-private partnerships to support

environmental education initiatives, and annually

awards challenge grants of from $5,000 to $40,000 each

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002).

The focus of many public environmental education organizations is the development and distribution of classroomready teaching aids. Many of the latter are monitored for

balance and scientific accuracy by the National Project for

Excellence in Environmental Education. Examples of

organizations or projects providing these educational

resources are the National WET Project, the Groundwater

Foundation, and Project Learning Tree. Some Federal

agencies also provide classroom teaching aids (for example, the wetlands curriculum and guides provided by the

Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

Extension initiatives—The Smith-Lever Act of 1914

created an extension service that made it possible for landgrant colleges to extend information to all citizens of a

State through the cooperative efforts of local, State, and

Federal governments (Sampson and DeCoster 1997). The

partnership was originally named the Agricultural Extension Service, but its name was changed to Cooperative


Extension Service to better reflect the involvement of

the various institutions engaged in extension work. The

cooperating units of government work to combine their

resources in support of university-based extension programs, one area of which embraces natural resources and

environmental management, including forest resources.

Historically, the design and implementation of extension

programs have been directed to meeting the long-term

information needs of clients (by developing knowledge

needed to solve problems); providing unbiased, credible

information; avoiding making decisions for clients (instead

generating alternatives and explaining consequences);

engaging in policy education (but avoiding formulation

and implementation); pursuing flexibility to meet individual client needs (by avoiding rigid curricula); and delivering information through well-qualified experts. This

cultural setting is a basis for typical extension roles,

namely problem-solving education, research implementation, technology transfer, building human capacity, and

seeking feedback on research needs (Reed and others

1997).

National legal authority for implementing extension

forestry programs is rooted in the Morrill Act (1862 and

1890), Hatch Act (1887), Smith-Lever Act (1914), and

Renewable Resources Extension Act (1978). The forestry

extension programs authorized by these laws are administered and coordinated nationally by the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

(CSREES). Recognizing the disparate program objectives

of extension and the many agencies seeking to accomplish

these objectives, the CSRESS promotes extensive partnering opportunities among a wide variety of public and

private organizations (for example, USDA Forest Service,

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDI

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, State foresters, rural conservation districts, forestlandowner associations, and various environmental interest

groups) (Biles 1996, Hamilton and Biles 1998, Reed and

others 1997, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

2000).

A principal funding mechanism for supporting forestry,

range, recreation, wildlife, and wood products extension is

the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) of 1978.

In 1999, RREA was federally funded at a level of about $3

million (States contributed an additional $27 million in the

form of funding and in-kind services) and provided support

for more than 711 extension staff-years, distributed among

major program components as follows: forestland 42 percent, rangeland 12 percent, fish and wildlife 23 percent,

outdoor recreation 5 percent, and environmental and

public policy 19 percent (table 2). The extension efforts of

the forestland program component were focused on forest

production activities (36 percent of extension staff years),

environmental quality concerns (16 percent), utilization

of forest products (23 percent), environmental education

(16 percent), and continuing education of resource professionals (10 percent) (table 2). Reed and others (1997)

reported the areas of expertise of 545 extension foresters,

each of whom was permitted to claim 3 areas of expertise.

Selected areas of expertise and percentages of extension

foresters claiming such expertise were:

• Forest management—33 percent.

• Wood products, natural resource stewardship, urban and

community forestry—10 percent each.

• Timber harvesting, economics and policy, wildlife and

fisheries, watersheds, agroforestry, environmental and

youth education, forest health and protection, Christmas

trees, windbreaks, range management—less than 5

percent each.

• Wood energy, maple syrup production, forest fire

prevention—less than 1 percent each.

Technical assistance—Federal agencies have legal and

institutional capacity to provide technical assistance on

matters involving forest resources, but State forestry agencies do most of the program implementation. Technical

assistance commonly refers to on-site assistance (such as

forestland management advice) provided by technical

professionals (such as forest resource professionals). The

agencies that provide such assistance are often the same

ones that provide public education and extension services.

Examples of Federal technical assistance programs are as

follows (Best and Wayburn 2001, National Research Council

1998, Sampson and DeCoster 1997, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency 1997, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002):

• Forest Stewardship Program—provides planning and

management technical assistance. Administered by the

USDA Forest Service and State forestry agencies.

• Resource Conservation and Development Program—

provides for technical assistance. Administered by the

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the

USDA Farm Service Agency.

• Conservation Planning—provides technical assistance.

Administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and local conservation districts.

• Conservation Technical Assistance Program—provides

technical and planning assistance in connection with

resource conservation practices. Administered by the

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

• Cooperative Forestry Assistance Program—provides

technical assistance to State forestry agencies.

Administered by the USDA Forest Service.


• Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance Program—

provides technical assistance to help businesses and

State agencies enhance pollution prevention programs.

Administered by the U.S. EPA Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics.

• Environmental Pollution Technical Assistance—

programs providing technical assistance on a wide

range of environmental topics. Administered by the

U.S. EPA Office of Science Policy, National Center for

Environmental Assessment, National Risk Management

Research Center, and others.

State and Local Government Capacity

Information about State legal and institutional capacity

to engage in public education, extension activities, and

Table 2—Renewable resources extension staffing, by region, program component, and national program

objective (1999)

National program objective (extension staff-years)

Region and Environmental Environmental Continuing

program component Production quality Utilization education education Total

North

Forestland 32.3 19.9 23.9 18.5 10.4 105.0

Rangeland 3.0 4.2 4.0 2.4 1.7 15.3

Fish and wildlife 9.1 14.6 1.5 22.8 11.3 59.3

Outdoor recreation 1.4 2.8 4.0 3.9 3.1 15.2

Environmental and

public policy 10.8 19.3 3.6 22.8 9.6 66.1

Total 56.6 60.8 37.0 70.4 36.1 260.9

South

Forestland 49.4 16.3 23.0 16.9 12.6 118.2

Rangeland 7.5 2.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 10.5

Fish and wildlife 18.5 8.4 7.3 13.3 3.5 51.0

Outdoor recreation 1.5 2.8 2.7 5.6 1.7 14.3

Environmental and

public policy 3.8 12.0 3.2 9.8 4.6 33.4

Total 80.7 41.6 36.5 46.0 22.6 227.4

West

Forestland 26.6 10.3 20.1 10.9 6.4 74.3

Rangeland 22.8 6.4 6.8 17.5 3.6 57.1

Fish and wildlife 19.3 13.5 2.2 13.6 1.9 50.5

Outdoor recreation 0.6 0.0 3.4 0.1 0.3 4.4

Environmental and

public policy 4.8 10.6 5.8 13.6 2.1 36.9

Total 74.1 40.8 38.3 55.7 14.3 223.2

National Totals

Forestland 108.3 46.5 67.0 46.3 29.4 297.5

Rangeland 33.3 12.7 11.1 20.3 5.5 82.9

Fish and wildlife 46.9 36.5 11.0 49.7 16.7 160.8

Outdoor recreation 3.5 5.6 10.1 9.6 5.1 33.9

Environmental and

public policy 19.4 41.9 12.6 46.2 16.3 136.4

Total 211.4 143.2 118.8 172.1 73.0 711.4

Source: USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (2000).


technical assistance has not been assessed comprehensively,

although modest assessments have been undertaken (for

example, Ellefson and others 1995). In many cases, Federal

and State education and technical assistance programs are

close partnerships, and this makes separate identification

of State and Federal emphasis and investments in these programs quite difficult. A classic example is the longstanding

partnership of Federal, State, and local governments

engaged in the implementation of extension programs.

In 1992, State educational and technical assistance programs offered to private forest landowners for the purpose

of encouraging forest sustainability existed in virtually all

States and focused on nearly all types of major forestry

activity that would benefit from such programs (table 3).

For the most part these programs were implemented by

agencies with a long tradition in forestry (for example,

State forestry agencies and land grant universities), although

State wildlife management agencies in all 50 States

reported in 1985 that they offered education and technical

assistance opportunities to private forest landowners interested in State government management of wildlife and fish

habitat associated with forests (Wigley and Melchiors

1987). In 2000, 12 cabinet-level units of State government

and 58 first-tier subcabinet-level units implemented programs that provided information about forest resource

management to private landowners. Six governing or

advisory bodies of State government were also so engaged.

In three States, extension is combined with a State forestry

agency that also offers on-site technical assistance to

landowners (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002).

Table 3—Number of State government education and technical assistance programs promoting best-forest-practice

standards on private forests, by forestry activity, region, and type of program (1992)

Number of States in region having program type

Major forestry activity North- Lake Mid- Mid- South- South Great Rocky

and type of program east States Atlantic Continent east Central Plains Mtn. West Total

Protect water quality

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 46

Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 5 5 5 6 5 47

Promote reforestation

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 6 5 4 5 6 46

Technical assistance 6 3 6 5 6 5 5 6 4 46

Improve timberharvesting methods

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 4 5 5 6 45

Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 6 5 5 6 4 47

Protect from wildfire,

insects, and diseases

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 47

Technical assistance 6 3 7 4 6 5 4 6 6 48

Protect wildlife and

endangered species

Educational programs 6 3 7 5 6 5 4 5 5 46

Technical assistance 5 3 6 5 6 5 5 5 4 45

Enhance recreation

and aesthetic qualities

Educational programs 6 3 6 4 5 5 4 5 3 42

Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 5 5 5 6 3 45

Note: Regional groupings of States are Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT; Lake States: MI, MN, WI; Mid-Atlantic: DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV;

Mid-continent: IL, IN, KT, MO, OH; Southeast: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC; South Central: AR, LA, OK, TN, TX; Great Plains: IA, KS, NB, ND, SD;

Rocky Mountain: AZ, CO, MT, NM, UT, WY; West: AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA.

Source: Ellefson and others (1995).


Cooperative Extension Service programs are an integral

part of the educational matrix in all States (Biles 2001). In

2001, staff persons assigned to forest and related extension

service responsibilities averaged 7.8 per State, although

the number ranged from 1 person each in 9 States to as

many as 35 persons each in 1 State (table 4). States with

a relatively large number of persons officially engaged

in extension activities are Oregon (35), Minnesota (21),

Washington (20), Pennsylvania (19), New Hampshire (17),

and Kentucky (15). It should be noted, however, that these

numbers are not full-time staff equivalents; rather they are

simply the number of people reported to have an official

role, however large or small, in a State’s extension service

program. Each State has an average of six full-time-equivalents devoted to extension activities focused specifically

on forestland (and supported by the Renewable Resources

Extension Act) (table 5). Again, the level of staffing varies

considerably among States—it is highest in California

(39.8 staff years), Mississippi (22.0), Georgia (20.5),

North Carolina (19.6), and Missouri (15.3); and lowest in

Connecticut (0.0), Delaware (0.1), New Mexico (0.2), and

Colorado (0.5). State extension staffing is concentrated

primarily on forest production (2.2 full-time-equivalents

per State), and utilization (1.3 full-time-equivalents per

State) (table 5) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

2000).

State governments also implement a variety of K-12

environmental education programs that often include

requirements leading to a better understanding of forests

and related resources. In 1998, nearly all States had a

statewide administrative structure (office, board, center, or

committee) that fostered environmental education; most

benefited from some reasonably stable source of funding

(Ruskey and others 2001) (table 6). However, in only 12

States is K-12 environmental instruction required by law

or administrative policy. Where this is the case, most

States have also developed a master environmental education plan and a suggested environmental education curriculum (table 6). Typical of State-mandated initiatives are

those in Wisconsin, where an environmental education law

enacted in 1990 was patterned, in part, after the Council of

State Governments’ Model State Environmental Education

Law (Council of State Governments 1993). Wisconsin has

a State environmental education coordinating board, an

environmental education grants program, State environmental education centers, and mandatory environmental

literacy assessment of students and teachers. Other States

have developed sophisticated support systems for teachers.

An example is Michigan’s EE-Link (developed and administered by the University of Michigan, supported by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), which allows

educators to gain Internet access to environmental information, including organized instructional materials (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency 1996).

Table 4—Number of forest resource and related Cooperative Extension Service staff, by State (2001)

Number of Number of Number of

extension extension extension

State staff State staff State staff

Alabama 7 Louisiana 9 Ohio 10

Alaska 1 Maine 1 Oklahoma 5

Arizona 1 Maryland 4 Oregon 35

Arkansas 12 Massachusetts 2 Pennsylvania 19

California 11 Michigan 11 Rhode Island 3

Colorado 2 Minnesota 21 South Carolina 13

Connecticut 2 Mississippi 12 South Dakota 1

Delaware 3 Missouri 2 Tennessee 9

Florida 8 Montana 3 Texas 5

Georgia 9 Nebraska 7 Utah 4

Hawaii 9 Nevada 6 Vermont 4

Idaho 4 New Hampshire 17 Virginia 15

Illinois 1 New Jersey 1 Washington 20

Indiana 9 New Mexico 7 West Virginia 3

Iowa 3 New York 10 Wisconsin 11

Kansas 1 North Carolina 13 Wyoming 7

Kentucky 15 North Dakota 1

Note: Total staff representing extension is 389. Number of extension staff is not comparable to “full-time extension staff-years.”

Source: Biles (2001).


Table 5—Forestland component staff of Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) program, by State

and national program objective (1999)

National program objective (RREA staff-years)

Environmental Environmental Continuing

State Production quality Utilization education education Total

Alabama 2.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.3 9.8

Alaska 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.5

Arizona 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.7

Arkansas 1.5 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 4.1

California 16.0 3.8 13.1 6.9 0.0 39.8

Colorado 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5

Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Delaware 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

Florida 1.0 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 3.4

Georgia 5.0 5.5 7.0 1.0 2.0 20.5

Hawaii 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.2

Idaho 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 4.7

Illinois 0.3 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.8 2.6

Indiana 1.6 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.3 4.7

Iowa 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.9

Kansas 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 3.6

Kentucky 2.7 0.2 2.8 1.0 1.5 8.2

Louisiana 5.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.3 9.3

Maine 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.5

Maryland 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.5 2.7

Massachusetts 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.9

Michigan 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.5 0.0 7.5

Minnesota 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.7 3.9

Mississippi 16.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 22.0

Missouri 5.0 3.2 3.2 3.0 0.9 15.3

Montana 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.4 3.3

Nebraska 0.0 0.8 1.8 0.8 0.0 3.4

Nevada 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6

New Hampshire 3.4 2.3 0.8 2.0 1.0 9.5

New Jersey 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0

New Mexico 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

New York 3.0 0.8 1.7 0.8 0.7 7.0

North Carolina 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.6 2.0 19.6

North Dakota 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0

Ohio 3.3 0.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 6.5

Oklahoma 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.7

Oregon 4.6 1.0 3.9 1.0 2.0 12.5

Pennsylvania 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.0 0.7 6.4

Rhode Island 0.2 2.0 0.2 1.5 0.3 4.2

South Carolina 5.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 6.7

South Dakota 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.3

Tennessee 1.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.5 3.1

Texas 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 2.7

Utah 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

Vermont 1.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.2 3.0

Virginia 2.6 0.4 1.7 1.5 1.0 7.2

Washington 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.6 6.3

West Virginia 1.5 0.6 2.0 1.0 0.3 5.4

Wisconsin 1.5 0.6 2.0 1.0 0.3 5.4

Wyoming 3.5 1.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 8.0

Average per State 2.2 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.6 6.0

Note: RREA is the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Extension Act.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (2000).
	

Table 6—State environmental education programs, by State and by type of program structure, program,

and funding (1998)

Major Program

Components of program structure administrative funding

components sources

K-12 Environmental Environmental established established

Environmental instruction education (office, board, (trust fund,

instruction master plan curriculum guide center, general State

State required prepared prepared committee) revenue)

Alabama X X

Alaska X

Arizona X X

Arkansas X X X X X

California X X X X

Colorado X X X

Connecticut X X

Delaware X

Florida X X

Georgia X X

Hawaii X X X

Idaho X

Illinois X X

Indiana X X

Iowa X X X

Kansas X X

Kentucky X X X

Louisiana X X X

Maine X

Maryland X X X

Massachusetts X X X X

Michigan X

Minnesota X X X X

Mississippi X

Missouri X

Montana X X

Nebraska X

Nevada X X X

New Hampshire X

New Jersey X X

New Mexico X

New York X X

North Carolina X X X

North Dakota

Ohio X X X X

Oklahoma X

Oregon X X

Pennsylvania X X X X

Rhode Island X

South Carolina X X

South Dakota X

Tennessee X

Texas X X

Utah X

Vermont X

Virginia X

Washington X X X X X

West Virginia X X X

Wisconsin X X X X

Wyoming X

Source: Ruskey and others (2001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996).
	


Summary of Conditions

Forestry and related public and private organizations in the

United States have a long history of providing information

about the use, management, and protection of forests.

Efforts to provide such information is motivated by a

desire to heighten public awareness of forest sustainability

principles and to acquaint citizens with the potential of

forests to enhance their economic and social well-being.

In light of the background and current conditions discussed

above, the following observations are made about the

identification and measurement of activities involving the

development and transfer of information concerning forest

sustainability:

• Information about forest resources is enormous in quantity and breadth, as is the range of potential audiences

seeking such information. As new information about

forests is produced as a result of formal research activities

or everyday experiences, the task of packaging and disseminating information about forests to an ever-growing

assemblage of interests becomes increasingly challenging.

• Information about forests can be communicated in a

variety of ways, depending on the audience of interest

and the outcomes desired. Educational initiatives that

relate to the sustainability of forest resources range

from the highly structured curricula implemented in

elementary and secondary schools to the more dispersed

public-affairs approaches focused on changing or

reinforcing opinions of the general public (which often

has only a passing interest in forests).

• Organizations responsible for communicating information about forest sustainability are many in number and

diverse in mission and program responsibilities, and the

intensity with which they engage in educational activities varies greatly. At times, certain organizations (for

example, private advocacy groups) are prone to bias and

one-sidedness in the information they convey.

• Extensive partnering occurs among and between public

and private organizations that are responsible for educational initiatives involving forest sustainability. Notable

examples are the Cooperative Extension Service, which

involves Federal, State, and local partnering in the

financing and delivery of extension services, and the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s extensive partnering with State organizations on educational matters

related to environmental quality.

• Educational programs are extensively commingled with

various other types of programs (programs such as technical assistance, fiscal incentives, tax relief, and regulatory actions) that promote the application of management

principles commonly associated with forest sustainability. Implementation of education programs in ways that

complement other types of programs often leads to more

efficient accomplishment of overall forest sustainability

goals and objectives.

• Private-sector capacity to undertake public education,

extension, and technical assistance efforts is extensive.

More than 80 private national organizations have educational initiatives focused on forest sustainability.

Privately sponsored forest certification programs have

an important role in education involving forest

sustainability.

• Federal Government agencies implement a wide range

of education programs focused on forest sustainability

and have extensive legal and institutional capacity to do

so. At least 19 Federal laws, including the Renewable

Resources Extension Act of 1978 and the National

Environmental Education Act of 1990, authorize such

activity. This capacity is exercised via programs involving public education generally, extension service programs, and one-on-one technical assistance initiatives.

In recent years, growth in extension service initiatives

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture has

been modest, whereas new authorities have significantly

expanded the capacity of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to undertake environmental education

(often involving forest sustainability).

• State government agencies have substantial legal and

institutional capacity to carry out educational programs.

In many cases these programs are conducted in close

partnership with Federal programs; an example is the

Cooperative Extension Service, which engages the

educational abilities of approximately six full-timeequivalent staff years per State. In recent years, State

governments have initiated a variety of K-12 environmental education programs, many of which are relevant

to better understanding of forest sustainability principles.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues and

trends involving extension and public education as related

to forest sustainability and conservation. Examples of this

literature (from which the following issues and trends are

drawn) are Bennett 1995; Ellefson and others 2001, 2002,

2003; Hamilton and Biles 1998; Hubbard and Dangerfield

1998; Leirman and Kulich 1987; Megalos and Payne 1995;

National Research Council 1998; Reed and others 1997;

Rivera 1996; Ruskey and others 2001; Sampson and

DeCoster 1997, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1996; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service 1994; and

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2002.

• Organizations involved in the development and implementation of educational programs having implications

for forest sustainability have increased considerably in
	

number and strength. Although this has provided opportunities to serve more and larger audiences, it has also

posed challenges to program coordination (including

concerns over interorganizational rivalries, especially in

an era of program downsizing) and to presentation of

integrated, consistent messages regarding forest sustainability (including concern over focus on a single forest

or environmental value, which poses significant challenges to coordination within and between organizations

and to confusion among client groups that hear mixed

messages).

• New technologies (such as distance delivery technologies) continue to transform the way in which information

about forest sustainability is communicated. Organizations responsible for educational initiatives are increasingly challenged to seek out and adopt new technologies

and to use them to their fullest potential.

• Client groups seeking information about forest sustainability are becoming increasingly diverse and are seeking information that is more in tune with their cultural

and ethnic experiences and background. Organizations

responsible for educational initiatives are challenged to

meet these increasingly diverse information needs. Such

challenges are a reality in a world where the success of

programs depends on the use of marketing skills and a

sound understanding of the audiences to be served.

• Subject material considered relevant to forest sustainability is growing in breadth. Client groups are increasingly seeking a broader range of information about the

use, management, and protection of forest environments.

However, this development does not decrease the importance of communicating information about economically important forest uses, including timber production.

• Although the number of organizations providing information about forest sustainability is increasing, these

organizations are quite mixed in terms of their ability to

provide timely, high-quality, value-neutral information

about forest sustainability. In the future, public and

private providers of information will be challenged to

broaden the sources from which they draw information

and to carefully monitor the quality of information

provided by such sources.

• Evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of educational programs is becoming increasingly important to

organizations that are responsible for such programs.

Although evaluations are often hampered by the diffuse

and long-term nature of the benefits delivered by investments in education and extension, the pressure to evaluate

programs is likely to become even greater as competition

for financial resources increases in both the public and

private sectors. Especially troubling is the modest scale

at which many education and technical assistance

programs are implemented (willing participants often

exceed supply).

• Educational programs at grades K-12 are increasingly

being implemented to expose students to a better understanding of forest sustainability. However, implementation of these programs is often prevented by unresolved

debate about the wisdom of integrating the programs

into existing lessons (history, science, social studies)

versus presenting environmental and related subject

material in separate and distinct blocks or courses. The

trend is toward the latter.

• Nongovernmental organizations are increasingly taking

the lead in environmental education and are increasingly devoting attention to matters involving forest sustainability. Especially important are State environmental

education associations and councils, which seek to

strengthen State capacity for effective environmental

education. Presently, 45 States have environmental

education associations.

Information Adequacy

Specification

The diversity in form and function of extension, educational, and technical assistance programs raises many

questions about the information required to adequately

assess educational conditions considered necessary for

forest sustainability and conservation. Educational

programs are carried out in many different ways by a wide

array of organizations. This makes it very difficult to

present an understandable picture of the Nation’s capacity

to promote principles of forest sustainability via educational activities. A number of information concerns need

to be addressed. For example (and from a strategic perspective), there is a pressing need for information about:

• Status and condition of education initiatives—magnitude and extent of current and planned investments in

educational programs.

• Need for investment in new or existing educational

programs—identification of objectives and assessment

of educational program investments needed to

accomplish them.

• Processes by which information is communicated—

determinations of adequacy, assessment of needed

investments, identification of financial resources, and

designation of responsibility for implementation.

• Effectiveness and efficiency of educational investments—relationship between desired conditions of

forest sustainability and type and level of educational

program.

• Knowledge and information networks—communication

and information flow between users and providers of

information.
	

• Regional and national influences on educational initiatives—in contrast to local conditions, influence of

broader geographic forest conditions, population

structure, type and mix of client groups, research and

development resources.

• Regional and international comparisons—determination of educational deficiencies, focusing of public and

private investments, learning experiences for improving

program efficiency.

Neither public nor private organizations have comprehensively assessed the availability of information about

educational and extension programs that relate to forest

sustainability. Notable providers of such information are

certain Federal agencies (for example, the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service),

most of which focus only on programs for which they are

directly responsible. In 1999, the National Association of

State Foresters (1999) sought a better understanding of

State forestry agency information concerning educational

initiatives. The Association reported that 34 States had

such information and that 16 did not. Of the 34 States with

information, 7 indicated that the information was abundant, 18 indicated that it was sufficient, and the remainder

indicated that they had some (but generally very little)

information. Eleven States reported that the quality of

their information was excellent, 19 that it was adequate,

and the remainder that it was poor.

The following comments and questions may be helpful in

guiding efforts to better understand the institutional capacity for and the role of extension and education that

support forest sustainability and conservation:

• Measurement Information—Information about which

variables should be measured and how they should be

measured so as to accurately portray conditions involving extension, education, and technical assistance

programs has not been assembled. What data should be

obtained and compiled (for example, number of persons

contacted, forest area under management, number and

type of management actions taken)? How often are

these data to be obtained? Are special data needs associated with different types of educational programs or

with public and private programs? What kinds of data

could be used to identify successful and indispensable

educational efforts (for example, reforestation undertaken, species habitats protected, continuation of

employment)?

• Extent-of-activity information—Information about education, extension, and technical assistance is often

scattered among public and private collecting organizations and often lacks local, regional, and national consistency. What are the legal requirements for investing in

educational programs at various geographic levels? How

are these requirements changing over time? Are there

different requirements at different levels of government?

Is there consistency across these requirements? What is

the status of local efforts to encourage investment in

education and extension programs? What is the condition of private education, extension, and technical assistance programs and what is the extent of private

investment in such programs? Are current compilations

describing these programs useful for guiding policy and

program direction?

• Responsible-organization information—The private and

public organizations actively engaged in the development and implementation of education, extension, and

technical assistance programs have not been listed comprehensively. What government agencies are responsible

for and engaged in these programs, and what is the level

of their involvement? What legal authority assigns them

responsibility, and is this authority being interpreted

accurately? What is the involvement of private organizations in relevant education and related programs? Do

public and private organizations engaging in educational activities have similar or differing goals and

objectives that foster or hinder needed investment in

education programs important to forest sustainability?

Should certain government levels be responsible for

providing certain types of educational programs for

certain forest landowners? Is there a standard for the

educational efforts of various organizations, or are

organizations working at cross-purposes, diminishing

public confidence in the information being provided?

Are there organizational patterns in the public and

private sector that, if known and publicized, would

enhance overall investment in education (alternatives to

extension leadership by universities and technical

assistance leadership by State forestry agencies)?

• Coordination information—Information about requirements to coordinate development and implementation of

education, extension, and technical assistance programs

among and between various levels of government and

various private concerns has not been assembled. What

conflicts exist among the various entities engaged in

developing and carrying out educational programs?

How might they be productively resolved? What are the

requirements for coordination? Do they allow for crosssectoral, coordinated planning and review (for example,

with programs involving fiscal incentives, tax incentives, and regulatory requirements)? Do they ensure that

the cumulative results of local, State, and regionally

implemented educational, extension, and technical

assistance programs will be consistent with national

requirements and vice versa? Do they allow incorporation of ad hoc educational activities occurring at various

times and undertaken by various levels of government?
	

• Investment and incentive information—Information

about resources devoted to education, extension, and

technical assistance has not been assembled comprehensively. What is the magnitude of investment in public

and private education focused on forest sustainability?

Is there an appropriate level of investment in these programs, and if there is, how is it determined (for example, by percentage of landowners to be contacted, or by

number of K-12 students provided educational kits)?

Are there legal and administrative processes for allocating resources to education focused on forest sustainability, and if so, are they effective? Are there legal or fiscal

means for encouraging development of educational

programs, especially those related to the sustainable

management of multiple forest resources?

• Effectiveness information—Information about the effectiveness of various types and levels of educational,

extension, and technical assistance programs in promoting sustainable forestry has not been compiled comprehensively. Are there legal or administrative requirements

to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of educational and related programs? What are appropriate measures of success? What are the relative efficiencies of

educational programs generally versus other policy

tools for accomplishing forest sustainability? Are there

more effective approaches to organizing and administering educational and extension programs (alternatives

to land-grant university leadership, alternatives to State

forestry agency leadership)? Are some organizations

more effective than others in developing educational

messages about forest sustainability, and if so why?

How are different messages best communicated to

different audiences?

• Procedure and specification information—Information

about standards and procedures for the development and

implementation of educational, extension, and technical

assistance programs has not been assembled. Do current

statutory requirements prescribe procedures for developing educational programs and the material presented in

such programs? Are such requirements detailed, or do

they establish a broad framework that gives discretion to

administrators, educators, and land managers? Is the full

intent of the existing laws that require education and

related programs expressed in current rules and administrative procedures? Do national requirements for

educational programs allow for regional and subregional

development of programs consistent with regional interests? Do requirements specify the need for leadership in

their development? Do they give guidance to such leadership? Is there any coordination among organizations

in the development of educational materials?

Recommendations

Indicator 53 suggests that success in achieving forest

sustainability requires consistent, long-term investments in

education, extension, and technical assistance programs.

In order to improve our understanding of the legal and

institutional setting within which this will occur, we must

address a variety of information voids. Many of these

voids are described above. We recommend that the following actions be taken:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews. Conduct periodic and

comprehensive reviews of current institutional capacity

and associated authorities that give direction and

resources to educational, extension, and technical

assistance programs considered necessary for forest

sustainability. These reviews should be guided by the

information deficiencies we have just discussed and

should emphasize the collection of information about

the type and extent of educational programs, organizations responsible for ensuring appropriate levels of

investment in educational programs, and the long-term

appropriateness and effectiveness of these programs.

This information should be gathered at Federal, State,

and local levels of government. In addition, a systematic

review of private sector capability to undertake educational programs relevant to forest sustainability should

be initiated.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews. Assign responsibility for conducting continuous reviews of educational,

extension, and technical assistance activities to a specific

current or new administrative unit of a Federal agency

(for example, the USDA Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service’s Natural Resources

and Environmental Management Unit, the USDA Forest

Service’s State and Private Forestry Unit or Research

and Development Unit, or the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Education),

a college or university, or other nonprofit organization

(for example, the National Association of State Foresters

or the National Association of Professional Forestry

Schools and Colleges). This responsibility should be

assigned to an organization that has a proven track

record in addressing the complexities of educational,

extension, and technical assistance programs relevant

to forest sustainability.

• Devote resources to reviews. Invest sufficient resources

in the reviews to provide the information necessary to

dramatically improve our understanding of the capacity

to plan, construct, and maintain educational, extension,

and technical assistance initiatives considered important

to sustainable forestry.
	

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

The terminology in which Indicator 53 is stated is not

adequately clear. The meanings of the phrases “public

involvement,” “public education,” and “make available

forest-related information” should be defined. Until they

are defined, these phrases cannot serve as useful guides to

information-gathering efforts. Furthermore, determining

exactly what is to be included under the umbrella term

“education” (Indicator 53 includes topics as diverse as

public involvement, public education, and extension

programs) also poses problems for information gathering.

And failure to acknowledge capacities represented by

technical assistance and related programs appears to be a

major deficiency.

The indicator could be improved if it were better defined

and more appropriately focused. As has also been suggested

elsewhere (Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry 1999), this

could be accomplished by changing the indicator’s wording to “provides for educational activities focused on

various segments of the citizenry and the general public.”

Reference to public involvement should be moved to other

more appropriate indicators.

Relationship to Other Indicators

The breadth of subject material suggested by Indicator 53

poses a number of crosscutting problems, most of which

could be avoided if the Indicator focused strictly on educational initiatives directed at the general public. Indicators

50 (opportunities for public participation), 55 (develop

human resource skills), and 51 (encourage best-practice

codes) seem to have a great amount of overlap with

Indicator 53. Indicators 50 and 53 both indicate analysis of

public involvement activities, while Indicator 55 suggests

a number of educational issues that overlap with Indicator

53. Other indicators that may have additional overlap or

close relationships with Indicator 53 include Indicator 39

(level of expenditure on research, development, and education), Indicator 44 (employment), Indicator 57 (enforcement), Indicator 58 (investment and taxation policies), and

60 and 62 (information availability and scope).

Literature Cited

American Forest Foundation. 1993. Environmental education activity

guides: Pre K-8. Washington, DC: American Forest Foundation. [Not

paged].

Bennett, C. 1995. Targeting outcomes of extension programs (TOP): an

integrated approach to planning and evaluating. In: Hubbard, W., ed.

Education and communication applications in natural resource management. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Georgia Center for

Continuing Education: 137-139.

Best, C.; Wayburn, L.A. 2001. America’s private forests: status and

stewardship. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 268 p.

Biles, L.E. 1996. Education perspective: nonindustrial private forests. In:

Baughman, M.J., ed. Nonindustrial private forests: Learning from the

past, prospects for the future. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Extension

Service: 28-33.

Biles, L.E. 2001. Cooperative Extension Service personnel in forest

management and wood products: a directory. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service. 82 p.

Butler, G.S.; Slack, J.D. 1994. U.S. educational policy interest groups:

institutional profiles. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 228 p.

Council of State Governments. 1993. Model State environmental

education law. Center for the Environment. http://www.csgwest.org.

[Date accessed: October 2001].

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of private

forestry practices by State government. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Hibbard, C.; Kilgore, M.A. 2003. Federal and State agencies and programs focused on non-Federal forests in the United States:

an assessment of intergovernmental roles and responsibilities. Staff

Pap. 167. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest

Resources. 142 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: an

assessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape of

State government. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department

of Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of State

agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry. 100(6):35-42.

Gale Group. 2002. Encyclopedia of associations: 2001. Detroit, MI: Gale

Group Publishers. [Not paged].

Hamilton, R.A.; Biles, L.E. 1998. Forestry extension in the United States.

[Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 56-66.

Hubbard, W.G.; Dangerfield, C.W. 1998. Understanding and overcoming

forestry technology transfer barriers in the U.S. In: Johnson, J.E., ed.

Extension forestry: bridging the gap between research and application.

Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University:

67-78.

Leirman, W.; Kulich, J. 1987. Adult education challenges of the 1990s.

New York, NY: Croom Helm Publishers. 215 p.

Malonis, J.A. 2000. Encyclopedia of business. Detroit, MI: Gale Group

Publishers. [Not paged].

Mater, C.M. 1999. Understanding forest certification: answers to key questions. DP-3-99. Washington, DC: Pinchot Institute for Conservation.

35 p.
	

Megalos, M.; Payne, S. 1995. Electronic delivery of environmental

materials: reaching new audiences via the internet. In: Hubbard, W.,

ed. Education and communication applications in natural resource

management. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Georgia Center for

Continuing Education: 26-34.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and

indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of

temperate and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/

mexico/tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2002].

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation

assessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org. [Date accessed:

September 2001].

National Research Council. 1998. Forested landscapes in perspective:

prospects and opportunities for sustainable management of America’s

non-Federal forests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 249 p.

National Wildlife Federation. 2001. Conservation directory: 2001 guide

to worldwide environmental organizations. Washington, DC: National

Wildlife Federation. 595 p.

Reed, A.S.; Garland, J.J.; Biles, L.E. 1997. Extension forestry organizational processes, programs and policies. In: Hubner, R.; Beck, R., eds.

Approaches to extension in forestry: experiences and future developments. IUFRO Pub. 1. Working Party Extension (S6.06-03). Vienna,

Austria: International Union of Forest Research Organizations: 117-136.

Rivera, W.M. 1996. Agricultural extension in transition worldwide: structural, financial and managerial strategies for improving agricultural

extension. Public Administration Development. 16:151-161.

Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry. 1999. Criterion level summary:

Indicators 53-59. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). http://

sustainableforests.net. [Date accessed: June 2001].

Ruskey, A.; Wilke, R.; Beasley, T. 2001. A survey of the status of Statelevel environmental education in the United States: 1998 update.

Journal of Environmental Education. 32 (4): 4-14.

Sampson, R.N.; DeCoster, L.A. 1997. Public programs for private

forestry: reader on programs and options. Washington, DC: American

Forests. 100 p.

Siegel, W.C. 1973. Long-term contracts for forestland and timber in the

South. Res. Pap. SO-87. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 18 p.

Trzyna, T.C.; Margold, E.; Osborn, J.K. 1996. World environmental

organizations. London, England: Earthscan Publications. 263 p.

University of Minnesota 2002. Social sciences in forestry: a bibliography.

http://forestry.lib.umn.edu/. [Date accessed: October 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education

and Extension Service. 1994. Shaping the future: a strategic plan for

natural resources and environmental management education. http://

www.nrem.net/description/index.html. [Date accessed: October 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service. 2000. Renewable resources education: report to

Congress on the 1996-2000 renewable resources extension program.

18 p. + appendices. http://www.reeusda.gov/1700/programs/nrem.htm.

[Date accessed: October 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Natural resource

conservation education: education and conservation partners for a

brighter tomorrow. FS-550. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. First approximation report for sustainable forest management: report of the United

States on the criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of

temperate and boreal forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 220 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The process

predicament: how statutory, regulatory and administrative factors affect

national forest management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 40 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

2002. Conservation programs. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs

[Date accessed: October 2001].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Report assessing environmental education in the U.S. and the implementation of the National

Environmental Education Act of 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Education Advisory

Council. 50 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Technical assistance

directory. EPA/600/K-97/001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. 100 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Environmental education

grants program: 1997-2001. EPA-171-F-00-001. Washington, DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Education.

[Not paged].

Wigley, T.B.; Melchiors, M.A. 1987. State wildlife management programs

for private lands. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15:580-584.
	

Appendix A

Private Organizations Engaged in Public Education Activities

Involving Forest Resources (2002)

American Fisheries Society

American Forest and Paper Association

American Forest Foundation

American Forests

American Rivers

American Society of Environmental History

American Society of Landscape Architects

American Water Resources Association

Arbor Day Foundation

Association of Consulting Foresters

Association of Ecosystem Research Centers

Association of Environmental and Resource Economics

Association of State Wetland Managers

Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute

California Association of Resource Conservation Districts

Center for Conservation Biology Network

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Colorado Riparian Association

Defenders of Wildlife

Earth Island Institute

Earth Pledge Foundation

Earthwatch

Ecological Society of America

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Design Research Association

Environmental Law Institute

Forest History Society

Forest Landowners Association

Forest Products Society

Forest Resources Systems Institute

Forest Stewardship Council

Friends of the Earth

Greenpeace

Hardwood Forestry Fund

Island Resources Foundation

International Association for Landscape Ecology

Izaak Walton League of America

League of Conservation Voters

Liberty Tree Alliance

National Audubon Society

National Association of Conservation Districts

Pesticide Action Network

Rainforest Action Network

Renewable Natural Resources Foundation

Resource Renewal Institute

Resources for the Future

Saving America’s Forests

Sierra Club

National Association of Environmental Professionals

North American Association for Environmental Education

National Association of Conservation Districts

National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and

Colleges

National Association of Resource Conservation and

Development Councils

National Environmental Education Training Foundation

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

National Forest Foundation

National Institutes for Water Resources

National Parks and Conservation Association

National Tree Trust

National Wildlife Federation

Nature Conservancy

Natural Areas Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

Natural Resources Law Center

Natural Resource Leadership Institute

New Forests Project

Society of American Foresters

Society for Ecological Restoration

Society of Environmental Journalists and Environmental

Journalism

Society for Range Management

Society of Wetland Scientists

Soil and Water Conservation Society

Soil Science Society of America

Southern Forest-Based Economic Development Council

Student Conservation Association

Tall Timbers Research Station

Taxpayer Assets Project

Temperate Forest Foundation

Trees for the Future

Trout Unlimited

Trust for Public Land

Union of Concerned Scientists

Water Environmental Federation

Watershed Management Council

Western Forestry and Conservation Association

Wilderness Society

Wildlife Management Institute

Wildlife Society

Woods Hole Research Center

World Stewardship Institute

Source: Various directories, including Butler and Slack (1994), Gale Group (2002), Malonis (2000), National Wildlife Federation (2001), Trzyna and others

(1996).
	

Appendix B

Periodicals Conveying Information About Use, Management, and

Protection of Forest Resources (2002)

Agriculture and Human Values

Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment

Agroforestry Systems

American Christmas Tree Journal

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

American Review of Public Administration

Appita Journal

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

Applied Geography

Appraisal Journal

Arboricultural Journal

BioCycle

Biodiversity and Conservation

Biomass and Bioenergy

Boston College Environmental Law Review

Brookings Review

Cellulose Chemistry and Technology

Chemosphere

Christmas Trees

Climate Research

Climatic Change

Common Property Resource Digest

Consultant

Contemporary Economic Policy

Crossties

Culture and Agriculture

Ecological Applications

Ecological Modeling

Ecologist

Ecology Law Quarterly

Economic and Political Weekly

Economic Botany

Economic Development & Cultural Change

Economic Geography

Ecosystem Health

Energy

Energy Economics

Engineered Wood Journal

Environment and Behavior

Environment and History

Environment and Planning

Environmental and Resource Economics

Environmental Ethics

Environmental History

Environmental Management

Environmental Science and Policy

Environmental Values

Environmentalist

Evaluation Report

Experimental Agriculture

Farm Management

Forest and Landscape Research

Forest Ecology and Management

Forest Landowner

Forest Log

Forest Magazine

Forest Perspectives

Forest Policy and Economics

Forest Products Journal

Forest Science

Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research

Forestry

Forests, Trees and Livelihoods

Forests, Trees and People Newsletter

Geoforum

Geographical Journal

George Wright Forum

Global Ecology and Biogeography

Global Environmental Change

Grassroots Development

Growth and Change

Human Ecology

Human Organization

Issues in Science and Technology

Journal of ...

Agricultural & Applied Economics

Agricultural & Resource Economics

Agricultural Economics

Anthropological Research

Applied Social Psychology

Arboriculture

Architectural Planning & Research

Arid Environments

Economic Behavior & Organization

Economic Perspectives

Environment and Development

Environmental Economics &

Management

Environmental Education

Environmental Management

Environmental Planning & Management

Environmental Psychology

Environmental Systems

Forest Economics

Forest Science

Forestry

Industrial Ecology

Interdisciplinary Economics

Leisure Research

Natural Resources & Life Sciences

Education

Non-Timber Forest Products

Park and Recreation Administration

Public Economics

Range Management

Regional Science

Risk and Uncertainty

Rural Development

Rural Studies

Sustainable Forestry

Institute of Wood Science

Travel Research

Tree Sciences

Tropical Forest Products

Tropical Forest Science

Tropical Forestry

World Forest Resource Management

Land and Water Law Review

Land Degradation and Development

Land Economics

Land Use Policy

Landscape and Urban Planning

Landscape Research

Legacy

Leisure

Leisure Sciences

Management Science

Minnesota Forests

Monthly Labor Review

Mountain Research & Development

National Parks

National Woodlands

Natural Areas Journal

Natural Resource Modeling

Natural Resources Forum

Natural Resources Journal

New Forests

News of Forest History

Policy Sciences

Policy Studies Journal

Political Research Quarterly

Polity

Progress in Paper Recycling

Public Administration Review

Public Administration & Development

Pulp and Paper

Pulp and Paper International

Quarterly Journal of Forestry

Range Management & Agroforestry

Rangeland Journal

Rangelands

Regional Science & Urban Economics

Regional Studies

Renewable Energy

Renewable Resources Journal

Resource and Energy Economics

Review of Agricultural Economics

Review of Economics and Statistics

Rural Sociology

Science of the Total Environment

Society and Natural Resources

Socio-Economic Planning Sciences

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry

Southern Lumberman

Structural Change & Economic Dynamics

Temperate Agroforester

Tigerpaper

Timber Producer

Tourism Analysis

Tree Farmer

TRI News

Tropical Forest Update

Walnut Council Bulletin

Water Resources Research

Western Journal of Applied Forestry

Women in Natural Resources

Wood and Fiber Science

Wood and Wood Products

Wood Energy News

Wood Technology

Woodland Steward

World Resource Review

World Watch

Yellowstone Science

Source: University of Minnesota (2002).
	

Appendix C

Federal Agency Programs Containing Educational Elements Relevant to

Forest Resources, by Agency (2001)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service:

National Agricultural Library

Natural Resources and Sustainable

Agricultural Systems

Office of Pest Management Policy

Pasture Systems and Watersheds

Water Management Research Laboratory

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service:

Aquaculture

Wildlife Services

Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service:

Cooperative Extension Service

Extension Indian Reservation Program

Forest Products Research, Education, and

Extension

Hispanic-Serving Education Grants

Program

Invasive Species Program

Multicultural Scholars Program

Renewable Resources Extension Program

Secondary Agricultural Education

Challenge Grants

Small Farm Program

Sustainable Agriculture Research and

Education Program

Tribal Colleges Endowment Fund

Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants

Program

Water Quality Program

Wildlife and Fisheries Program

Economic Research Service:

Agricultural and Rural Economic Research

Farm Service Agency:

Aerial Photography Field Office

Conservation Reserve Program

Conservation Reserve Enhancement

Program

Foreign Agricultural Service:

Emerging Markets Program

Export Assistance Program

Market Access Program

Forest Service:

Agroforestry Program

Cooperative Forest Health Protection

Program

Forest Products Conservation and

Recycling Program

Forest Stewardship Program

Forest Taxation Program

National Forest-Dependent Rural

Communities Program

Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative

Research and Development Programs

Rural Development, Forestry, and

Communities

State Fire Assistance

Forest Service (cont.):

Stewardship Incentives Program

Volunteer Fire Assistance Program

Wildlife Management & Education

Programs

National Agricultural Statistics Service:

Agricultural Statistics Reports

Natural Resources Conservation Service:

Conservation of Private Grazing Land

Initiative

Conservation Technical Assistance

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

Forestry Incentives Program

Great Plains Conservation

Resource Conservation and Development

Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting

Soil Survey

Soil and Water Conservation

Water Bank Program

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention

Watershed Surveys and Planning

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration:

Forest Products and Building Materials

Division

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration:

National Weather Service

Technology Administration:

National Technical Information Service

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Research:

Office of Scientific & Technical

Information

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs:

Endangered Species on Indian Lands

Environmental Management: Indian

Programs

Forestry on Indian Lands

Water Resources on Indian Lands

Fish and Wildlife Service:

Conservation Law Enforcement Training

Assistance

Wildlife Restoration

Migratory Bird Banding & Data Analysis

Geologic Survey:

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping

Program

Upper Mississippi River System

Monitoring

National Park Service:

National Landmarks Program

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of the Administrator:

Common Sense Initiative

Environmental Education Grants

Environmental Education and Training

Program

Project XL

Small Business Ombudsmen

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Programs

Office of Air and Radiation:

Agstar Program

Air Information Center

Air Toxics Program

Climate Change Research

Climate Protection Programs

Mobile Sources Program

Particulate Matter Programs

Office of Children’s Health Protection:

Children’s Health Protection

Office of Environmental Education:

National Environmental Education Act

Office of Environmental Information:

EMPACT (Community Tracking Program)

EMAP ( Monitoring and Assessment

Program)

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic

Substances:

Community Right To Know Program

Design for the Environment

Pesticide Applicator Certification and

Training

Pesticide Registration

Pesticide Reregistration

Pesticide Residue Tolerance Reassessments

Office of Research and Development:

Environmental Technology Verification

Exploratory Grants Program

Human Health Research

Science to Achieve Results Fellowship

Program

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response:

Hazardous Substance Research

Resource Conservation & Recovery Act

Programs

Risk Management Program

Office of Water:

Clean Water Action Plan Related Research

Coastal Environmental Monitoring

Great Lakes Program

Gulf of Mexico Program

Lake Champlain Basin Program

Long Island Sound Study

NPDES (Pollutant Discharge Permitting

Program)

Rural Water Technical Assistance

Safe Drinking Water Research
		

The full text of Indicator 54 is as follows: Extent to which

the institutional framework supports the conservation and

sustainable management of forests, including the capacity

to undertake and implement periodic forest-related

planning, assessment, and policy review, including crosssectoral planning and coordination (Montreal Process

Working Group 2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

Forests are affected by a wide variety of physical, economic, and social influences, many of which originate

beyond the forest community in sectors such as energy,

agriculture, transportation, communication, environment,

and government. The sustainability of forests is dependent

on the institutional ability of societies to comprehensively

evaluate trends and conditions in these diverse sectors and

take responsive actions that will ensure the sustained use,

management, and protection of forest resources and the

communities that are dependent upon them. These actions

are typically predicated on institutional conditions that

foster the production of well-focused and technically sound

plans, assessments, and policy reviews that are sensitive to

a range of forest values and are coordinated with a variety

of forest-related sectors (Montreal Process Working Group

2003, Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee

2000).

The focus of the indicator is on the institutional capacity

available to conduct planning, assessments, and policy

reviews. Useful measures of this capacity include enumerations of the public and private agencies and organizations

involved; information about the frequency with which

plans, analyses, and reviews are prepared; the financial

and professional resources devoted to these activities; and

information about the ability of public and private institutions to accomplish plan objectives involving conservation

and sustainability. Of special interest is information about

the ability of agencies, plans, assessments, and reviews to

address issues involving coordination and cross-sectoral

planning (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee

2000).

Indicator 54 refers to planning, assessments, policy review,

and cross-sectoral planning and coordination. To guide

this review, we define these terms as follows: planning

refers to disciplined procedures undertaken to guide

organizations having an interest in forest sustainability

(for example, strategic resource planning, land use and

management planning); assessments are comprehensive

examinations of present and prospective conditions (ecological, economic, political) that are likely to affect forest

sustainability; policy review is the development and examination of options for addressing important issues involving

forest sustainability; cross-sectoral planning is planning

that embraces diverse ecological, economic, and political

structures and conditions important to forest sustainability;

and coordinating is harmonizing and integrating plans,

assessments, and policy reviews important to forest

sustainability.

The indicator draws special attention to the institutional

capacity to engage in cross-sectoral planning and coordination. A State or nation’s forestry sector may be but one

of many sectors capable of fostering sustainability and

conservation of forests. There is potential for cross-sectoring at interfaces between project plans, forest sector plans,

and macro or national plans; interfaces between plans for

different forest resources (for example, timber, recreation,

range, wildlife); interfaces between forestry and nonforestry

plans (for example, agriculture, minerals); interfaces

between public and private-sector plans (public timberland

investments and private timber processing facilities); and

interfaces between forestry plans and nonforestry plans for

activities that affect forestry-related functions (such as

general transportation plans). The number of potential

interfaces relevant to forest sustainability is large and there

is considerable opportunity for coordination (Ellefson

1985, Greeley 1966).

Conceptual Background

Planning Activities

Planning is often considered a central component of forestland management. Statutes and administrative directives

governing the use, management, and protection of forests

invariably set forth requirements for agency development

of plans and directives that provide the framework within

which managers can develop operational approaches for

accomplishing organizational missions. Since private and

public interests in the use, management, and protection of

forests are part of dynamic political and economic systems,

plans are subject to periodic review and revision.

1 Ellefson, Professor, and Hibbard, Research Specialist, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Forest Planning, Assessment, and Policy Review (Indicator 54)

Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard1




Coordination of various types and levels of plans prepared

in response to various local, State, and Federal statutory

requirements is an onerous task. An effective approach to

coordinating, and in some cases reconciling, plan development and implementation has not yet been realized.

Forest resources plans are highly variable in their purpose,

content, and focus. Strategic program plans, land use and

management plans, and multisector plans have recognizable characteristics.

A strategic program plan sets the general direction of an

agency’s efforts to achieve its mission or vision and results

from a formalized but modest set of exercises or from the

combined responses of an agency to continuing streams of

often-unexpected issues. Examples of the latter are State

and Federal agency actions responding to unexpected judicial and legislative directives, actions which when combined

form a de facto strategic plan. Statewide forest resource

plans prepared by lead forestry agencies in State government, and the plans required of the USDA Forest Service

by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 and the Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993, are examples of strategic plans

resulting from more formalized exercises.

Plans can also be very focused in identifying expected outcomes, as in the case of land use and management plans.

Of interest is agency capacity to develop plans that are

specific enough to provide clear direction for management

activities, and concrete enough so that success can be

measured. Such plans can identify uses, outputs, and

conditions that are desirable and feasible, and can explain

how management will affect key sites, produce important

outputs, and protect vital resources and ecosystems. Land

use and management plans tend to be the product of

rational planning approaches that require clearly specified

objectives, alternatives, decision criteria, and implementation and monitoring procedures. Plans for each of the

Nation’s national forests, as prepared by the USDA Forest

Service under authorities set forth by the National Forest

Management Act of 1976, and plans for each refuge, as

prepared by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service under

authorities set forth by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997, are examples of use and management plans for public lands. Plans prepared by nonindustrial private forestland owners in response to many

fiscal incentive programs (such as the Forest Stewardship

Act of 1990) and tax incentive programs (such as property

tax relief) are examples of private planning initiatives.

Plans developed to guide the use, management, and protection of forests can be prepared in response to statutes

that require direct and exclusive consideration of forests,

or in response to statutes that authorize the development

of broad multisector plans. The Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, for example,

requires the preparation of plans that address a variety of

interests in forests (such as wildlife, fish, timber, and grazing) and requires interdisciplinary consideration of desired

forest conditions. Some multisector plans focus on a specific physical resource (for example, air or water) that may

be affected by the use and management of forests. Examples of more broadly construed multisector plans are those

required of agencies that are responsible for administering

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of 1987, and Clean

Air Act of 1990. State governments also develop multiresource plans that affect forests, and these plans are often

developed in direct response to the enactment of Federal

laws.

Judgments about how well institutions execute their responsibility for developing plans (whether strategic program,

land use and management, or multisector) and the implementation of planning processes presume the existence of

standards or measures of goodness. An obvious source of

such standards is the statutes that authorize an agency to

engage in planning activities (for example, required public

participation, preparation by interdisciplinary teams).

Examples of other commonly advocated standards are legal

sufficiency, ability to resolve conflict, cost-effectiveness, a

foundation of accurate data and sound analysis, practicability, communication of a clear vision, timely completion,

active leadership by administrators, and flexibility sufficient to accommodate unexpected events. This list of

standards is not all-inclusive, but it illustrates the range of

conditions to be considered in assessing the strengths and

weaknesses of forest planning efforts (Bryson 1988, Gray

and Ellefson 1987, Larsen and others 1990, Teeguarden

1990).

Assessment Activities

Assessments are comprehensive examinations of present

and prospective conditions that are likely to affect the use,

management, and protection of forests now and in the

future. They are often viewed as supportive of plan development in that plans generally respond to assessmentidentified gaps between current and desired conditions in

the use, management, and protection of forests. Assessments developed by public agencies have traditionally

been detailed, comprehensive, data-driven exercises,

although movement is toward assessments that examine

broad trends in resource, economic, and social conditions

that a forestry agency might adapt to or attempt to influence (Sample and LeMaster 1995). Some assessments

have been developed to evaluate or monitor agency

progress toward key goals and objectives that have been

identified in a plan. Examples of assessments are the



USDA Forest Service’s renewable resources assessment,

which is prepared every 10 years as is required by the

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

of 1974; the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service’s critical

habitat assessment for threatened and endangered species,

which is required by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966 (amended 1997); and various

statewide resource assessments carried out by the forestry

agencies of State governments (including the assessments

of criteria and indicators that are being prepared by an

increasing number of States).

Policy and Program Review Activities

Anticipating, evaluating, and developing options for

addressing important forest resource issues is the focus of

policy and program analysis. Organizations typically

select issues requiring analysis on the basis of such factors

as their urgency, strategic significance, programmatic

importance, geographic scope, fiscal implications, and the

expectation of useful results from analysis. The clients of

public agency policy analyses are generally forestry agency

executives, although leaders in other branches of government and in the private sector often seek the results of

policy analysis. Examples of topics addressed by the policy

analysis staff of the USDA Forest Service include payments

to States from national forest receipts, water resource

policy and the management of forests, and the role of

public and private recreation enterprises. Policy analysis is

also carried out by the renewable resources and planning

staff of the USDI Bureau of Land Management, the planning and evaluation staff of the USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service, and the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State

government forest agencies have policy and program

analysis capabilities (for example, the Resource Policy

Division of the Oregon Department of Forestry), and

private organizations often have significant capacity to

undertake policy and program reviews.

Current Institutional Capacity

Private Sector Capacity

As stated before, private organizations often have significant capacity to undertake policy and program reviews.

For example, industrial forestry concerns periodically

prepare policy reviews of their strategic position in forest

product markets and of their corporate landownership

strategies. Similarly, private companies looking to timberland as a long-term investment opportunity often undertake careful review and analysis of such opportunities (for

example, Hancock Timber Resource Group). Private

organized interest groups also engage in policy review and

analysis activities, often as a means of influencing the

development of public policy on the use and management

of forests. Examples of such groups and their publications

include the Society of American Foresters (“Forest Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Population and Community

Responses to Forest Management” [2002]), the National

Association of State Foresters (“Review of State and

Private Forestry Deputy Areas of USDA Forest Service”

[2002]), the Pinchot Institute for Conservation (“Allocating

Cooperative Forestry Funds to States: Block Grants and

Alternatives” [2001]), the Wilderness Society (“National

Forests: Policies for the Future” [1988]), and the Sierra

Club (“Forest Fires: Beyond the Heat and Hype” [2002]).

Also representing policy review capacity are special-interest group reviews of National Forest land management

plans and critiques of plans to offer timber sales from

public forests.

Private-sector institutional capacity for land management

planning is apparent in the development and implementation of management plans for private forests. In some

cases, forest management certification programs require

development of a management plan as a prerequisite for

certification (for example, certification of forest management practices by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative of the

American Forest and Paper Association). In 1994, approximately 5 percent of nearly 10 million private landowners

had a plan for the management of their forest property

(table 1). Nationally, these plans directed the use and management of forest on nearly 154 million acres of private

land. Thirty-seven percent of the plans were prepared by a

State government employee (service forester), while landowners (21.7 percent) and consultants (10.7 percent) were

the next most frequent plan preparers. Consultants were

responsible for plans applied to more than 25 million acres

of private forestland. For 1998, the USDA Forest Service

reported the preparation of nearly 28,000 forest management plans (including forest stewardship plans) that were

applied to more than 1.8 million acres of private forest

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1999). A

nationwide study found that 84 percent of landowners with

forest stewardship plans had begun to implement them,

applying at least one recommended activity (Esseks and

Moulton 2000).

Private-sector capacity to prepare land management plans

is also reflected by the legal requirements of State forest

practice regulatory programs. As a prerequisite to timber

harvesting on private forests (for example, in California,

Oregon, and Washington), landowners are required to prepare a timber harvest plan that prescribes forestry practices

considered critical to the sustainability of forest conditions. In the early 1990s, the California Board of Forestry

processed between 1,200 and 1,500 such plans per year,

while the Oregon Department of Forestry and Washington’s



Division of Forest Practices processed 15,000 to 20,000

per year and 10,000 to 15,000 per year, respectively

(Ellefson and others 1995).

Federal Government Capacity

Planning activities—Federal institutional capacity for

planning the use, management, and protection of forests

has existed for many years. Early planning activities were

usually initiated by agency executives seeking to define

broad strategic direction for the activities of their agencies.

In recent years, however, Federal laws have required agencies to engage in planning that is more formal in process

and more focused in substance. Prior to 1974, Congress

did not specifically require any Federal land management

agency to conduct formal systemwide planning (Coggins

and others 1993). Today there are at least 26 Federal statutes that require major agencywide activities involving

the preparation of strategic program or land use and management plans. One-third of these statutes establish planning

requirements that are directly or exclusively applicable to

forest programs or management (table 2). The planning

required by these 26 statutes is carried out by at least 10

different Federal agencies and results in plans that vary in

geographic scope (national, regional, local) and relevance

to the use and management of forests (Coggins and others

1993, Dolgin and Guilbert 1974, Goble and Freyfogle 2002,

Mansfield 1993, Plater and others 1998, Schoenbaum and

Rosenburg 1996, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 2002, West Publishing Company 1997).

Federal statutes requiring agency-developed plans focused

on forests are nearly evenly split between those that require

the preparation of strategic program plans and those that

require land use and management plans (table 2). The planning requirements focused exclusively on forests address a

wide range of forest values (water, wildlife, timber, recreation), while those not specific to forests tend to have primary concern for a single forest value. Although a number

of statutes require agency-prepared plans to be coordinated

with related sectors, in most cases the statutory requirement to do so is unclear. This lack of statutory clarity is

also the case with regard to requirements for updating

plans, although there are notable exceptions. For example,

the National Forest Management Act of 1976 is very clear

in this respect (plans must be revised at least every 15

years). In many cases (for example, the Clean Water Act

of 1987), statutes require the preparation of an initial plan

and are silent on subsequent revision or modification of

that plan. Most, but not all, Federal statutory planning

requirements apply to all major forest landownership categories. Examples of Federal agency responses to laws that

require the preparation of strategic and land use and

management plans are presented in the following pages:

Table 1—Forest management plans prepared by private forest owners,

by type of owner and type of plan preparer (1994)

Owners Area Management plan

preparation Number Proportion Acres Proportion

thousands percent millions percent

Owners with written plan 531.2 5.4 153.6 39.0

Owners without written plan 8,594.1 86.7 226.2 57.5

Unknown status 784.9 7.9 13.6 3.5

Total 9,910.2 100.0 393.4 100.0

Plan prepared by:

Owner 114.8 21.7 16.7 19.0

Consultant 56.5 10.7 25.5 28.9

Industrial forester 20.6 3.9 8.9 10.1

State government employee 196.2 37.1 16.8 19.1

Extension Service 8.9 1.7 0.9 1.0

USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service 47.3 9.0 4.6 5.2

Other 87.9 16.6 24.0 27.3

Total 532.2 100.7 97.4 110.6

Note: Table totals exceed 100 percent because plans were prepared by more than one type of preparer. Of

owners with a written plan, 528,800 were nonindustrial private owners (88.1 million acres), and 2,400 were

industrial owners (65.5 million acres).

Source: Birch (1996).



Table 2—Federal statutes providing institutional authority for planning activities involving forests and forestry, by various planning characteristics (2001)

Coordination Major forest

Primary Range of with plans for Periodic ownership

Federal statute requiring some form type of plan forest values related forest updating of categoryof planning activity required addressed sectors plans required addressed

Planning focus directly and exclusively on forests and forestry

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 Strategic Yes Yes * All ownerships

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act Strategic Yes * Yes All ownerships

of 1974

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act Strategic Yes Yes * All ownerships

of 1978

McIntire-Stennis Forest Research Act * Yes * * All ownershipsMultiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 * Yes Yes * Federal

National Forest Management Act of 1978 Management Yes Yes Yes FederalRenewable Resource Extension Act of 1978 Strategic Yes Yes Yes All ownerships

Planning focus on forests, forestry andrelated resources

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 Strategic Yes * Yes All ownerships

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 Strategic No * * All ownerships

Clean Air Act of 1990 Strategic Yes * * All ownerships

Clean Water Act of 1987 Strategic No Yes Yes All ownershipsCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Management Yes Yes Yes All ownershipsEndangered Species Act of 1973 Management No No * All ownershipsFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Management Yes * * All ownerhips

(as amended 1996)

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 Strategic Yes Yes Yes Federal

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 Management No * Yes All ownerships

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 Strategic Yes Yes Yes All ownershipsLand and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 Management No * Yes All ownerships

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Strategic Yes Yes * All ownershipsNational Park Service Organic Act of 1916 Management No * * FederalNational Trails System Act of 1968 Management No Yes * All ownerships

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Management No Yes Yes Federal

Act of 1966 (1997)

Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 Strategic Yes Yes Yes Private

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 Management Yes * * All ownerships

Wilderness Act of 1964 Management No No * FederalWild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 Management No Yes * All ownerships

Note: Asterisk indicates statute is not clear on this point.Source: Plater and others (1998); Shoenbaum and Rosenburg (1996).



• USDA Forest Service—The USDA Forest Service is

responsible for the National Forest System, forest

resources research, and technical and financial assistance

to State and private forestry agencies. A variety of

statutes require the Forest Service to prepare strategic

program plans and land use and management plans. In

addition to the more multisectoral laws that guide the

planning of resources use and management generally,

the Forest Service must give consideration to such

Federal statutes as the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act of 1980, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, Archeological Resources Protection

Act of 1979, Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of

1978, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Wilderness

Act of 1964, National Forest Roads and Trails Act of

1964, and Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960.

An example of strategic program planning is the Forest

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of

1974 (RPA), which requires preparation of a resources

assessment every 10 years, a resource program every 5

years looking to conditions 45 years hence, a Presidential

statement of policy to guide budget formulation, and

annual reports on progress toward implementation of

the planning documents (Office of Technology Assessment 1990, 1992a). The RPA process requires consideration of all forest values, coordination with other Federal

agencies, and cooperation with other levels of government (especially State governments). Since 1993, the

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has

preempted strategic planning legislative authorities for

most Federal agencies. The program element of the RPA

has in effect been subsumed by the GPRA; the RPA

Assessment now provides the context for the GPRA

strategic plan.

The response of the USDA Forest Service to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 is another

example of strategic program planning. Responding to

the act, the 2000 plan (revised) sets strategic direction

for the agency for a 5-year period, with each year’s funding being dependent on progress toward accomplishing

the goals specified in the plan (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 2000a). Four broad goals are

identified (ensure sustainable ecosystems, provide for

multiple benefits, ensure development and delivery of

information, and ensure organizational effectiveness).

Each of these is given operational clarity by more

focused objectives (for example, improve and protect

water conditions, improve knowledge base through

research and monitoring), time frames for accomplishment, and measures of performance. The strategic plan

also sets forth provisions for program evaluations and

coordination of overlapping functions.

The USDA Forest Service is also responsible for land

use and management planning under authorities specified in the National Forest Management Act of 1978.

Specific to the national forests, this statute specifies

planning processes and calls for guidelines that focus

attention on the availability of land for resource management, potential levels of resource use and management,

and ways in which a variety of resource management

practices are to be carried out. The actual planning

process involves 10 steps, including identification of

potential uses and estimated outputs, response to issues

of public concern, protection of especially valuable

resources and ecosystems, and plan implementation and

monitoring (Office of Technology Assessment 1992b,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2000b).

Plans (identified as Land Resource Management Plans)

are to be revised at least every 15 years, must comply

with related and relevant Federal environmental and

resource statutes, and are to be vertically integrated

with planning at other levels in the agency (nationwide:

strategic plan; region: regional guide; national forest:

land resource management plan; and project-level:

specific projects). More than 85 national forest plans are

to be revised during the period beginning in 1999 and

ending in 2004.

• USDI Bureau of Land Management—The USDI Bureau

of Land Management administers 264 million acres of

Federal public land and the mineral rights underlying

564 million acres of Federal public land. The Bureau

has produced a strategic plan in response to requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act

of 1993. This plan sets forth 5 major (or blueprint) goals

(serve current and future client groups, restore and

maintain health of land, promote collaborative management, improve business practices, and improve human

resources management), 43 performance goals (for

example, preserve natural and cultural heritage, establish

and implement management standards and guidelines),

and a variety of results to be accomplished over a 3- to

10-year period (for example, evaluate areas and resources

that may warrant special recognition, incorporate comprehensive standards for public land health into existing

land use plans). The Bureau coordinates plan implementation at the national and local level with 14 other

Federal agencies.

The USDI Bureau of Land Management also engages in

land use and management planning (Williams 1987).

The agency is guided by an especially wide range of

Federal statutes and Executive orders that require planning activities, and many of these activities involve

consideration of forests. In addition to multisector laws

that guide institutional capacity for planning related to

resource use and management generally, the Bureau of

Land Management must give consideration to Federal



statutes such as the Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Act, Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of

1976, Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Public Rangelands

Improvement Act of 1978, and Wild and Free-Roaming

Horse and Burro Act (U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management 2000a). However, the

Bureau’s major land management planning authority

proceeds from the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976, which requires the Bureau to prepare landuse plans that provide management direction for the

Nation’s public lands. These land-use plans are part of

the Bureau’s three-tier planning structure, which

consists of a national strategic plan (responding to the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993),

resource management plans, and plans for areas that are

of critical concern (because they have unique wildlife

and special ecosystems). The resource management

plans, of which 108 have been developed since 1984,

address specific resource conflicts, reflect public

participation and comment, and are accompanied by

environmental impact statements.

The USDI Bureau of Land Management planning process, developed in response to the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of Act of 1976, is as follows:

identify issues and concerns, assess information, identify desired outcomes, and specify allowable uses and

actions needed to achieve desired outcomes. Statutory

limitations on the implementation of this process include

requirements to inventory resource conditions on public

lands; involve the public in plan development; comply

with multiple-use principles; coordinate plan development and implementation with other Federal, State,

local, and tribal governments; give priority designation

and protection to areas of critical environmental concern;

comply with applicable pollution control laws; and

recognize development rights of mining claimants (U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

2000a, 2000b). The Bureau’s Land Use Planning Handbook requires that planning describe healthy forest conditions and the best management practices that can be

applied in order to accomplish such conditions (U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

2000b).

• USDI National Park Service—The National Park Service

is responsible for the management of 83.6 million acres

of public land. Under authority granted by the National

Park Service Organic Act of 1916 and administrative

rules and directives pursuant to the act, the National

Park Service carries out four interrelated planning

processes: general management planning (agencywide

mission and goals), park strategic planning (park-level

mission and goals), implementation planning (agencywide and park-level plans of action), and annual

performance planning (agencywide and park-level

measures of progress). The order in which these processes

occur flows from broad-scale general management

planning through progressively more specific strategic,

implementation, and performance planning (U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1998).

Major principles guiding the agency’s planning activities include use of interdisciplinary planning approaches

and principles, use of scientific and technical information

in decisionmaking, use of peer review panels to address

conflicts over validity and interpretation of information,

use of alternative dispute resolution processes (internally

and externally), and review and analysis of post-litigation decisions to identify ways to improve future decisions (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service 2001).

Although the agency’s planning activities are heavily

focused on specific park units (taking the form of land

use and management plans), an agencywide strategic

program plan has been developed in response to the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service 2000).

The plan focuses on four major goals, namely (1) to preserve park resources, (2) to provide for public enjoyment,

(3) to strengthen cultural and recreational resources, and

(4) to ensure organizational effectiveness. Eleven strategies for accomplishing these goals are specified (for

example, develop additional partnerships, improve

technology and databases), and various cross-agency

issues and suggestions for their resolution are presented

(for example, working with various Federal agencies on

south Florida ecosystem restoration). The agency also

suggests management and data issues to be dealt with

and describes plans for evaluating programs.

• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service—The

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is responsible for a wide range of forest resource programs, all of

which require some level of planning prior to their

implementation. These planning activities are conducted

in accordance with authorities granted by the Soil and

Water Conservation Act of 1977 and the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993. The former

requires the preparation (every 10 years) of an appraisal

of the Nation’s soil, water, and related resources and the

development (every 10 years) of a soil and water conservation program. These documents are to be consistent

with the findings of resource inventories and assessments,

identification and analysis of alternatives, consultation

and consensus-building processes, and sound principles

of plan implementation and program evaluation. They

are to be transmitted to the U.S. Congress, as are annual

reports (to accompany proposed budgets) of progress in

implementing the program. This planning and program

development is to involve processes that integrate social,

economic, and ecological resource concerns while also



ensuring the maintenance of natural systems and ecological processes. Only two plans and appraisals have been

made by the Natural Resources Conservation Service

under authorities established by the Soil and Water

Conservation Act of 1977.

The agency’s planning activities involving forests are

responses to a number of forest and related programs

that have been assigned to the agency for implementation. These planning activities give direction to programs

that provide for natural resource information, community planning and development, conservation cost-share

program assistance, conservation planning and implementation, erosion control and reduction, farmland

protection, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, forest

improvement and management, range management,

stream restoration, water management, water quality

improvement, wetland restoration and protection,

watershed planning, conservation technical assistance,

emergency watershed protection, and natural resources

inventory. Most of these functions are carried out in

cooperation with State governments and typically require

State-developed plans prior to their implementation by

the agency. Examples are the Forestry Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, and Stewardship

Incentive Program, all of which are administered in

cooperation with the USDA Forest Service.

The agency also responds to the Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993 by preparing an agencywide

strategic program plan (U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service 2000). The

plan identifies 4 major goals (enhance resource productivity, reduce unintended natural resource impacts, protect communities from flood and drought, deliver highquality services to the public) and 14 specific objectives

that give a focus to these goals (for example, enhance

forestland productivity, enhance fish and wildlife habitats). Coordination of plan development and implementation with other public and private concerns (especially

with State governments) is extensive and involves

cooperation on matters including education, research,

data collection, and program delivery. Provisions are

made for program evaluations, including advance (by 1

year) insertion of evaluation schedules into the agency’s

annual operational plans.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—The Fish and Wildlife

Service is responsible for conserving, protecting, and

enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats

for the continuing benefit of the Nation. The agency is

guided by more than 150 Federal statutes, many of which

authorize planning activities that are directly relevant to

the use, management, and protection of forests. An

example is the agency’s role in administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973, a planning role that has been

especially important in defining the sustainability of

wildlife habitats associated with public and private

forests. Among other agency-developed plans that have

implications for forest resources are comprehensive

conservation plans for wildlife refuges, an information

resources management strategic plan, endangered species

habitat conservation plans, servicewide strategic and

performance plans, and a wildland fire and air quality

national strategic plan.

The agency’s long-range strategic program plan is prepared in response to the Government Performance and

Results Act of 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2001a). The plan states 4 mission goals (sustain fish and

wildlife populations, conserve habitats through a network

of lands and waters, provide for public use and enjoyment, establish partnerships for managing wildlife

resources) and 14 long-term goals that implement these

mission goals (for example, provide for greater recreational use of wildlife refuges, work with private landowners on eradication of invasive species). Key factors

affecting the ability to accomplish these long-term goals

are specified (for example, extent of collaboration with

partners, extremes in weather and climate conditions),

as is coordination of wildlife-related activities with other

Federal agencies that have responsibilities involving

wildlife and wildlife habitats (for example, management

of the South Florida Everglades, implementation of the

Northwest Forest Plan, recovery of endangered species).

The plan has specific provisions for addressing major

wildlife habitat concerns on land not directly administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For example,

the plan calls for the restoration and establishment (by

2005) of 280,000 acres of wetlands habitat, 524,000 acres

of upland habitats, and 4,150 riparian or stream miles of

habitat not directly owned or controlled by the agency.

The Fish and Wildlife Service also engages in land use

and management planning as authorized by the National

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (as

amended in 1997). This includes the development of

comprehensive conservation plans for refuges that are

part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 2001b). These plans are to provide

a clear and comprehensive statement of desired conditions for each refuge and to provide for rational management decisions needed to accomplish such conditions,

including the management of forests considered important as wildlife habitat. The process of developing comprehensive conservation plans provides opportunity for

public involvement and for interaction with other Federal

agencies that have responsibilities for the management

of wildlife. Implementation of completed plans is also

to be coordinated with State conservation agencies, tribal

governments, and non-governmental organizations. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expects to complete

comprehensive conservation plans for 250 planning areas



of the National Wildlife Refuge System by 2006. The

plans are to be reviewed and updated at least every 15

years.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for a

wide variety of programs that focus on protecting human

health and safeguarding the natural environment (air,

water, and land) upon which life depends. The agency

influences the use, management, and protection of

forests through statutory authorities that focus on water

(wastewater, drinking water, ground water), air (acid

rain, global warming, emissions), hazardous wastes,

insecticides, endangered species, and wetlands and

watersheds. Nearly all of these programs involve planning activities that have implications for forests. For

example, States must develop implementation plans for

meeting air and water quality standards promulgated by

the agency under authorities of the Clean Air Act of

1990 and the Clean Water Act of 1987. The latter act

authorizes plans developed to address nonpoint pollutant

sources originating in forested areas, and these plans

have been especially important in determining what

forest practices are applied, and how they are applied on

private and public forestland.

The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a

strategic program plan in response to the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2000). The strategic plan

focuses on 10 goals (clean air, clean and safe water, safe

food, pollution prevention, waste management, quality

environmental information, sound environmental science,

reduced global environmental risk, program compliance,

and effective agency management). Multiple objectives

and performance requirements are specified for each of

these goals. The plan’s development and implementation are coordinated with more than 100 Federal, State,

and local agencies, tribal governments, business and

industry organizations, and environmental and public

interest groups.

Other Federal agencies that engage in planning the use,

management, and protection of forests include the

Council on Environmental Quality (establishes rules

that govern administration of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969), Army Corps of Engineers

(administers wetland provisions of the Clean Water Act

of 1987), Department of Defense (prepares plans for the

Department’s forestlands), Tennessee Valley Authority

(manages its forests and assists private forest landowners),

and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (manages Indian

forestland).

Assessment activities—Federal agencies have significant

institutional capacity to undertake comprehensive examinations of present and prospective conditions that are

likely to affect the use, management, and protection of

forests (table 3). Of the 22 assessments identified here as

examples, two-thirds address a range of forest values,

although often only for a specific region or land-ownership

category (for example, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Assessment, the Northern Lands Assessment, and

the Southern Forest Assessment). Most of these assessments are conducted in coordination with other agencies

and with different ownerships and levels of government,

but the details of this coordination are not always specified

clearly by statutes or agency directives. Coordination can

be difficult because assessments involving forests can have

differing objectives (timber assessments versus endangered

species assessments) and are often undertaken by a number of Federal agencies, many of which do not have forests

as their primary responsibility (Johnson and others 1999).

It is also significant that most Federal assessments are

regional or ecosystems based; that is, the area of concern

for planning is determined by scientifically defined, ecologically based geographic boundaries (for example,

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Interior Columbia River

Basin, Northern Spotted Owl Forest Ecosystem) (Hardt

1997). This approach enables the development and implementation of policies and programs that comprehensively

promote the sustainability of the large-scale, regional

ecosystems in question.

Agency authority for carrying out assessments is set forth

by statutes that call for continuous assessments (monitoring) (such as the acid rain deposition program of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency), periodic assessments

at specified intervals (such as the Renewable Resources

Assessment of the USDA Forest Service), or intermittent

assessments required to address important issues related to

resource use and management (such as the Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Report of the USDA Forest

Service and cooperating agencies). Intermittent assessments frequently have a specific geographic focus, usually

a multi-State region. About 80 percent of the assessments

identified in table 3 address conditions on all forest ownerships. Notable exceptions are those focused on wildlife

refuges, national forests, national parks, and Indian

forestlands.

Assessments are frequently undertaken in concert with the

development of strategic program plans or land use and

management plans (as, for example, in the case of the Soil

and Water Appraisal and the Conservation Program of the

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). Resource

information provided by assessments has proven to be

especially useful in the development of such plans. Assessments are increasingly being used to evaluate progress

toward key goals and objectives that are specified in agency

plans, and have become especially important sources of

information for agency employees who must evaluate



Table 3—Federal environmental and natural resource assessments, by type, administering agency, and source of

authority (2001)

Assessment type and title Principal administering agency Authority for undertaking assessment

Continuous

National acid precipitation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act of 1990

assessments

Periodic (specified intervals)

Forest inventory and analysis USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Research Act of 1978

Land use and condition inventory USDI Bureau of Land Management Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976

Soil and water resource appraisal USDA Natural Resources Conservation Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977

Service

Air pollutant assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act of 1990

Water quality assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act of 1987

Renewable resources assessment USDA Forest Service Forest and Rangeland Renewable

Resources Planning Act of 1978

Indian forestland assessment USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Forest Resources Management

Act of 1990

Regional water and related resources Water Resources Council Water Resource Planning Act of 1965

assessment

National forest resource assessment USDA Forest Service National Forest Management Act of 1976

Wildlife refuge resource assessment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966

National park resource assessment USDI National Park Service National Park Service Organic Act of 1916

National biological survey USDI National Biological Service Various Federal statutes

Intermittent (determined by need)

Environmental impact statements Council on Environmental Quality and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

proposing agency

Global climate change effects U.S. Department of Agriculture Global Climate Change Prevention Act

assessment of 1990

Endangered species review U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Endangered Species Act of 1973

others

Forest ecosystem management USDA Forest Service and others National Forest Management Act of 1978

assessment report and others

Northern forestlands assessment Northern Forest Lands Council and Federal and State statutes

USDA Forest Service

Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem Multiple Federal agencies Various Federal statutes

assessment

Sierra Nevada ecosystem assessment USDA Forest Service Various Federal statutes

Regional impact assessment of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act of 1990

climate change

Southern forest resource assessment USDA Forest Service and others Various Federal statutes

	

progress toward goals specified in their agency’s strategic

program plans, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Sample and Le Master

1995).

Policy and program review activities—Federal agency

institutional capacity for review and analysis of policy and

program initiatives focused on forest resource matters is

substantial. Unfortunately, no comprehensive documentation of staff levels, budgets, and responsibilities that reflect

this capacity exists. An examination of agency staff directories and organizational charts reveals that policy and

program reviews are undertaken at virtually all levels

within agencies. For example, such reviews are conducted

at the departmental level (USDA Office of Budget and

Program Analysis), at the agency level (Policy Analysis

Staff, USDA Forest Service), at middle levels within agencies (USDA Forest Service’s regional office analysts and

planners), and at field or operational levels (USDA Forest

Service’s National forest analysts and planners). Analysis

and review capacity also exists within the research units of

agencies (USDA Forest Service’s Research and Development’s Resource Valuation, and Use Research unit) and

agency budget development and coordination units (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Division of Budget and Office

of Budget, Planning, and Human Resources). Further

complicating judgment about policy and program review

capacity is the large number of agencies that review

broad-based resource or environmental programs that are

not solely focused on forests (the USDA Natural Resource

Conservation Service’s Oversight and Evaluation Staff).

The number of policy and program analysts within Federal

agencies that are responsible for programs affecting forests

is probably in the range of 200 to 300. In the Washington,

D.C. office of the USDA Forest Service, more than 25 persons have the title of policy analyst, program analyst, or

program planner. A review of four policy and program

review units in three agencies indicates that policy review

activity is being applied to a wide range of issues and

coordination responsibilities (table 4).

State Government Capacity

Planning activities—State governments have engaged in

some form of forest planning activity since the early 1900s,

although the character of these activities and the number

and type of State government organizations involved in

them have changed dramatically over the years. Early

planning efforts were focused largely on protecting forests

from fire, insects, and diseases and on promoting investments in timber as a forest use. By the mid 1980s, Stateinitiated forest planning activities ranged from the development of comprehensive statewide forest resource plans

to the preparation of plans required by forest practice

regulatory programs, and from broad water quality plans

to plans for forest-based rural economic development.

Moreover, forest resource planning activities, which through

the late 1960s were largely the domain of a State’s lead

forestry agency (division of forestry, bureau of forestry,

forestry commission), had by 2000 become the province of

many units of State government. In 2000, each State

reportedly had 8 to 10 executive branch units of State

government (cabinet, sub-cabinet, governing commission)

that engaged in some form of planning activity focused on

forests (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002). Certain federal

statutes require that State government agencies develop

multisector plans to address possible impacts of forestry

activities on water, air, wildlife, and the like (for example,

Clean Water Act of 1987, Coastal Zone Management Act

of 1972). The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978

also has done much to encourage lead forestry agencies of

State government to develop plans that focus on statewide

forest resource conditions (U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service 1980).

The capacity of State governments to engage in planning

activities focused on forests varies greatly. States operate

within different planning contexts (large state budgets

versus small State budgets, large forest area versus small

forest area), take different approaches to planning (issue

driven, goal driven, or adaptive planning), and pursue different goals, objectives, and strategies (Gray and Ellefson

1987). Some States (Minnesota, for example) seek to

develop broad strategic plans that formulate a vision,

discuss obstacles to attaining the vision, and present a plan

for dealing with such obstacles. Other States tend to focus

on the specifics of land use and management, especially

with respect to the forestland that is directly owned and

managed by State governments (State forests). In yet other

States, the aggregate of forest plans prepared by private

forest owners as a requirement for participation in costshare programs (Forestry Incentives Program), dedicated

easement programs (Forest Legacy Program), or a State’s

forest practice regulatory programs (rules guiding plan

preparation) become, in a sense, plans for a State’s privately owned forests. Some States control land development generally by means of statutes that manage growth

(for example, Vermont, Florida, Maine, Oregon); in these

States, forests are subject to planning both in the sense

that certain activities cannot occur within designated forest

areas and in the sense that forests cannot be converted to

nonforest uses (Wickersham 1994).

Statewide forest resource planning programs were actively

underway in 47 States in 1982 (McCann and Ellefson

1982), while in 1985, the Council of State Governments

determined that 29 States had completed first-generation

plans and were in the process of implementing them (Cole

1985). In 2003, 45 of 50 States were determined to be

Table 4—Federal agency units with policy and program review and evaluation capacities, by unit name, mission, staff, and example analyses (2001)

Agency policy analysis Staffing levelsand review unit Mission or responsibilities and assignments Example reviews and analysesPolicy Analysis Staff, Bring existing or emerging policy questions Nine policy analysts Evaluation of State payments from nationalPrograms and Legislation, to the attention of agency leadership; and two support staff forest receipts; role of public and privateUSDA Forest Service provide quality analysis on assigned policy recreation enterprises; analysis of water

questions and program evaluations in a resource policy and the management oftimely and objective manner. Coordinate forests; assessment of policy options forpolicy analyses with appropriate parties Forest Service participation in forest productswithin and outside government, including certification; and evaluation of agencyanalyses of agency-wide direction and funding history, including spending trendsstandards for economic efficiency and nonappropriated funding.evaluation and economic impact assessment.

Office of Policy, Economics, Support agency’s mission through economic Staff assigned to four Development of guidelines for preparingand Innovation, analysis and promotion of innovation needed major offices or centers economic analyses, assessment of U.S.U.S. Environmental to achieve better, more cost-effective experiences with economic incentives forProtection Agency environmental and public health protection. protecting the environment, and review of

options for public involvement inenvironmental permits.

Planning and Evaluation Provide counsel, coordination, education, Ten policy analysts plus Evaluation of agency policy options (forStaff, Division of Policy and liaison services to the agency and serve support staff Director’s Orders) for ozone-depletingand Directives Manage- as coordinating point for internal and substances phaseout plan, applicability of thement, and Division of external customers, including the public Migratory Bird Treaty Act to FederalEconomics, U.S. Fish and and other governmental bodies requiring agencies, and development of options for theWildlife Service assistance. mission, goals, and purposes of the National

Wildlife Refuge System.

Oversight and Evaluation Conduct activities to assess quality, About 30 policy and Develop rational approaches to agencyStaff, Division of Operations accountability, effectiveness, and consistency related program analysts responsibilities regarding the NationalManagement and Oversight, in the delivery of conservation assistance as plus support staff Environmental Policy Act, assess field staffOffice of Strategic Planning defined by laws, Executive orders, rules, prepared designs, plans, and specifications forand Accountability, USDA regulations, and policy so as to improve the installation of site-specific practices, andNatural Resources Conser- use and management of natural resources. evaluate these for consistency (1) with thevation Service (also Division agency’s mission and strategic plan, (2) withof Budget Planning and the products and services developed byAnalysis and Division of cooperating institutes and centers, and (3)Strategic Performance with collaborating scientists.Planning).


involved in a variety of forest resource planning processes,

such as State-administered forest planning (87 percent of

States), comprehensive statewide forest resource planning

(51 percent of States), agency operational planning (84

percent of States), issue- and problem-oriented planning

(82 percent of States), and land-use allocation planning

(22 percent of States). States spent, on average, $433,000

in 2003 to support forest resource planning activities,

although the majority of States spent less than $250,000

(19 States invested less than $50,000, 11 States more than

$1 million). Planning activities required the professional

talent of an average of 4.4 full-time-equivalent staff per

State. Half the States regularly seek the public’s perspective during the development of comprehensive statewide

plans. Planning activities were undertaken primarily to

secure a clearer understanding of agency long-term directions and to improve the quality of management and

administrative structures (Kilgore and Salk 2003).

Statewide forest plans have been prepared by nearly all

States during the last 20 years (see Indicator 49, table 5,

page 36). However, many States have not updated plans

they prepared in the 1980s (for example, Connecticut,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio), while others have

revised their plan or substituted a similar planning

document or group of planning documents for it (for

example, Colorado, Iowa, Vermont, and Wisconsin). Those

States that have discarded the policy of preparing a

traditional statewide forest plan have focused their

planning efforts on specific forest areas or ownerships (for

example, Indiana’s Strategy for State Forest Land

Properties, Alaska’s Haines and Tanana Valley State forest

plans, Washington’s State land plan); more inclusive

natural resource plans prepared by more broadly charged

natural resource agencies (for example, Illinois

Department of Conservation Strategic Plan); strategic

focus involving all forest ownerships and management

activities (for example, Minnesota’s Forest Resources

Council’s Vision, Goals, and Actions for Minnesota’s

Forests; Kansas and Nebraska’s sets of plans for various

operations or programs which include fire, stewardship,

and urban and community forestry); plans structured

according to criteria and indicators of forest sustainability

(for example, Oregon’s First Approximation Report,

Hawaii’s Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest

Management in Hawaii); policy directive documents

adopted by agencies or governing boards (California’s

Board of Forestry’s Policy Document); and plans for specific forest management activities (California’s Fire Plan,

Hawaii’s Watershed Protection Plan).

A nationwide review conducted in 1987 found that all

States had governmental institutions with statutory authority to undertake forest planning, and that support of

administering agencies and various client groups for

planning (such as legislators, forest industries, environmental groups, State government budget directors) was

considerable and increased in strength as planning activities progressed (Gray and Ellefson 1987). Most of these

planning arrangements were promoted by the USDA Forest

Service under authorities established by the Cooperative

Forest Management Act of 1978 (USDA Forest Service

1980). Among the specifically identified benefits of planning were greater sense of long-term program direction,

increased coordination among disparate programs, greater

public awareness of forest conditions, more program

accountability, and increased political support for the

forestry programs of State government (Gray and Ellefson

1987).

Assessment activities—State governments have the institutional capacity and statutory authority to undertake comprehensive assessments of conditions affecting the use,

management, and protection of forests. State government

agencies conduct both one-time assessments of important

issues and ongoing assessments of resource, economic, or

social conditions affecting forests. Although there has

been no systematic and comprehensive review of assessment programs implemented by States, the number of such

programs is probably in the hundreds. Examples of recent

assessments focused on important issues include those

involving proposed expansions of chip or particleboard

industries. At least three States—Minnesota, Missouri, and

North Carolina—have produced comprehensive assessments of resource and economic conditions in relation to

these industries (Missouri: Chip Mill Report to the Governor

of Missouri, Governor’s Advisory Committee on Chip

Mills [2000]; North Carolina: Economic and Ecological

Impacts of Wood Chip Production in North Carolina,

Report of the Southern Center for Sustainable Forests

[2000]; and Minnesota: Generic Environmental Impact

Statement on Timber Harvesting and Forest Management,

Minnesota Environmental Quality Board [1992]). Other

examples of State assessment capacity are Washington’s

Natural Heritage Program Geographic Information System

(rare plant species and endangered ecosystems), the

Vermont Geographic Information System (rare, threatened,

and endangered species), the Pennsylvania Biological

Survey (formal system defining status of plants and

animals), the Virginia Forest Resource Assessment (assessment of implications of population growth and land use

changes for forest resources), the Illinois Critical Trends

Assessment (statewide and regional environmental conditions), the Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership

(develops and disseminates high-quality natural resource

information), the Arizona Land Resource Information

System (statewide multipurpose spatial database of

resource extent and conditions), and the California Fire

and Resource Assessment Program (assesses amount,

extent, and condition of forests and rangelands). Many of


these State assessments focus on large ecosystem-bounded

regions within a State.

State governments also have the institutional capacity to

undertake assessments as part of efforts to understand the

environmental consequences of certain proposed actions.

State authority to prepare environmental impact statements

is typically set forth in statutes, Executive orders, or administrative regulations. By the early 1980s, 60 percent of

States had established these authorities, although how and

to whom they are applied varies considerably from State

to State (Fisher and Phillips 1983) (see Indicator 49, table

6, page 38). For example, California’s authority applies to

government and some private actions, Kentucky’s authority

is limited to certain types of development (power plant

siting), and Minnesota’s authority can apply to broad geographic areas (generic environmental impact statements).

Many of the environmental impact assessments conducted

via environmental impact statement processes have a focus

on forest conditions (for example, Minnesota’s Generic

Environmental Impact Statement on Timber Harvesting

and Management). It is not known exactly how often and

in what manner such laws have been applied in relation to

forest resources in the United States.

Policy and program review activities—State agencies

often have institutional capacity to undertake policy and

program reviews of important forest resource issues or

programs. However, there is little information on the extent

and focus of such capacity at the State level. Usually the

forest resource policy and programs review function is not

assigned to a specific stand-alone unit within State government. Typically, it is spread among many subunits of an

agency (for example, fire management, resource management), or combined with administrative functions involving personnel, budgeting, legal reviews, and legislative

liaison activities, or is performed by a policy and program

unit at a higher organizational level. At the cabinet or

subcabinet level of State government, about 15 States have

planning or policy and program review units, and these

very likely have some responsibility to review forest

resource programs administered by lower-level forest

resource units or divisions (Ellefson and others 2001).

Examples are the Division of Environmental Planning and

Management of the California State Lands Commission;

the Office of Planning and Assessment, Indiana Department

of Environmental Management; the Office of Planning and

Development, Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection; and the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy,

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

Policy review units specifically identified as part of a

State’s lead forestry agency are very few. They include the

Fire and Resource Assessment Unit (23 employees) of the

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,

which, in addition to assessing forests and rangelands, also

identifies and analyzes alternative management and policy

guidelines, and the Division of Resource Policy, Oregon

Department of Forestry, which is responsible for program

evaluation, resources planning, public affairs, and

legislative coordination.

Local and Regional Government Capacity

Local and regional governmental jurisdictions are known

to engage in planning, assessment, and policy and program review activities. Unfortunately, no comprehensive

national assessment of this capacity has been made. Local

governments undertake forest planning and related activities if the forests in their jurisdictions are large and locally

important. States that are known to have local governments

with planning capabilities are California, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. In some States, regional

authorities conduct planning relevant to forests (for example, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Coastal

Commission in California). In 2000, more than 400 smallscale local government watershed initiatives (districts)

were identified in the western United States (3 times the

1995 total) (Natural Resources Law Center 1998, 2000).

These initiatives often involve forested watersheds.

Summary of Conditions

Forestry and related public and private organizations in the

United States have a long history of institutional capacity

for engaging in forest planning and assessment activities,

and for undertaking periodic reviews of forest resource

policies and programs. The capacity of such organizations

for planning, assessment, and policy review may be

summarized as follows:

• Private individuals and organizations represent important

institutional capacity for carrying out planning, assessment, and policy review activities focused on forests

and related natural resources. These individuals and

organizations are diverse, as are the planning, assessment, and policy review activities they carry out. The

extent to which this capacity is actually being used to

produce meaningful plans that are implemented effectively is largely unknown.

• Public forest resource agencies at all levels engage in

some form of planning, assessment, and policy review

activities. In general, there appears to be ample authority

for planning, assessment, and policy review, although

the institutional capacity for exercising these authorities

varies widely within and between different levels of

government.

• Institutional planning capacity responds to both statutes

or administrative directives that require direct and exclusive consideration of forests, and to statutes that require

development of multi-sector plans for resources such as


air, water, or wildlife. Multisector authority tends to

fragment institutional capacity and the administration

of forest activities rather than to integrate consideration

of forest values.

• Agencies of many types and with many different responsibilities for forests engage in planning, assessment, and

policy review activities. In only a limited number of

cases is there evidence of concerted and effective effort

to coordinate these capacities and activities within and

between governments.

• Agencies can produce strategic program plans as well as

land use and management plans. In some cases, these

plans are essentially aggregations of individual plans

and assessments prepared for specific individual forest

ownerships or specific geographic areas. Plans that are

assembled in this way are commonly produced by

agencies of State governments.

• Some agencies, especially State government agencies,

appear to be reducing their participation in the development of statewide strategic program plans. The statewide forest resource plans of State governments are

frequently very much out of date, and are often being

replaced by regional or issue-oriented plans and by

plans that are driven by criteria and indicators.

• Although some agencies separate planning, assessment,

and policy review functions organizationally, these

functions most often are combined as a single activity

assigned to a single administrative unit. Few States

assign exclusive responsibility for policy analysis and

review to a specific administrative unit.

• Investments in institutions that have responsibility for

planning, assessment, and policy review activities

involving forests are highly variable in amount and

regularity. They are determined by the importance of

the forests being managed and by the willingness of

agency leadership to promote the importance and

usefulness of planning, assessment, and policy review

activities.

• Many agencies devote substantial levels of resources

(substantial finances, advanced analytical methods, and

highly educated professionals) to their planning, assessment, and policy review activities. In general, Federal

agencies invest more heavily in these activities than do

State, regional, or local government agencies.

• Assessment activities are very often one-time efforts

that respond to major issues involving controversy over

proposed resource development or management. However, some assessment activities have become monitoring initiatives that are conducted on a continuous basis

(such as air-quality monitoring) or at periodic intervals

(such as forest inventory and analysis).

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of issues and trends in

forest planning, assessment, and policy review activities

that are worth noting in the context of institutional capacity. Examples of this literature (from which the following

issues are drawn) are: Bryson 1988, Hardt 1997, Sample

and LeMaster 1995, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service 1990 and 2002.

• Agencies are increasingly seeking the flexibility necessary to anticipate and take advantage of important

opportunities represented by forests, and are more and

more inclined to focus forest planning processes on

these opportunities. This change in emphasis is making

planning less technical in its emphasis and more focused

on the preferences that flow from public debate and

discussion.

• Clients of forest resource programs are increasingly

involved (through various collaborative processes) in the

development of forest plans and in the conduct of

assessments and policy reviews. This is part of a general

public expectation for greater interaction in decisionmaking with government agencies.

• Institutional capacity for conducting planning, assessment, and policy activities is increasingly fragmented,

as are the agencies responsible for conducting such

activities. This diversity in institutional capacity and

legal authorities often results from the need to meet the

demands of many different and sometimes competing

client groups. There is increased recognition of the

importance of coordinating the planning, assessment,

and policy review activities of multiple agencies.

• Planning, assessment, and policy analysis have become

more complex, costly, and time-consuming. The desire

to address all management uncertainties with intensive

information gathering and analysis is of growing

concern.

• Institutional capacity to prepare forest plans and assessments increasingly recognizes planning boundaries as

defined by scientifically defined, ecologically based

geographic boundaries or the political (State) boundaries of large multi-State regions. This trend is driven in

large measure by an interest in ensuring the physical

sustainability of large forested areas.

• Approaches based on criteria and indicators are becoming

increasingly common. Such approaches to planning,

assessment, and policy analysis provide a structure to

guide program direction and accountability, and provide

direction for the gathering of information and its

subsequent management.


• The technical, budgetary, and fiscal practicability of

forest plans is increasingly being emphasized, as is

monitoring of progress in achieving plan goals and

objectives. These trends are largely a response to the

public’s skepticism about the effectiveness of government programs and the public’s interest in greater

accountability of government.

Gathering and analyzing information that can be directly

useful in dealing with issues and problems is receiving

greater emphasis. This trend is a response to cost concerns

and to the need for information that will serve a wider

variety of purposes (such as planning, monitoring, public

relations, and policy development). Approaches that treat

information gathering as an isolated technical exercise are

being de-emphasized.

Information Adequacy

Specification

The variables or combination of variables that can be used

to describe institutional capacity to undertake planning,

assessment, and policy review activities, and the agencies

and organizations involved in these functions, are numerous.

It is often difficult to determine exactly what information

to gather, analyze, and present to make a useful picture of

institutional capacity.

The National Association of State Foresters has surveyed

State forestry agency information about the institutional

setting for planning, assessment, and policy reviews involving forests (National Association of State Foresters 1999).

The Association reported that 5 States had abundant information about institutional capacity for planning and related

activities, that 12 States had sufficient information of that

kind, and that the rest had very little or none. Seven States

reported that the quality of their information was excellent,

11 that it was adequate, and 6 that it was poor.

The kinds of information that could be used to clarify the

capacity of institutions to conduct planning, resource

assessment, and policy review activities are as follows:

• Extent-of-activity information—Comprehensive information about the institutional capacity for planning,

assessment, and policy analysis activities at various

levels of government has not been assembled systematically. What are the requirements for conducting such

activities? Who is responsible for conducting such

activities? Are there different requirements at different

levels of government? Is there consistency across these

requirements? Are there legal and constitutional issues

at stake between governments? What is the status of

local planning and zoning initiatives? To what extent do

planning, assessment, and policy analysis activities

occur in the private sector?

• Coordination information—Information about requirements for coordination of planning, assessment, and

policy analysis activities among and between institutions

at various levels of government has not been assembled.

What coordination is required? Do the requirements

address the need for cross-sectoral coordinated planning

and policy review? Do they ensure that the cumulative

results of local and regional planning will be consistent

with national plans and vice versa? Do they allow incorporation of ad hoc planning activities occurring at various

times and undertaken by various levels of government?

• Procedure and specification information—Information

about the procedures to be employed in planning,

assessment, and policy review activities undertaken by

various institutions has not been assembled. Do current

statutory requirements prescribe procedures for planning, assessment, and policy review? Are these procedures specified in detail, or in a broad framework that

allows for administrative discretion and flexibility in

rulemaking procedures? Is the full intent of the existing

laws that address planning, assessment, and policy

review activities expressed in current regulations and

practices? Do national planning requirements allow for

regional and subregional planning? Do requirements

specify the need for planning leadership? Do they give

guidance to such leadership?

• Cumulative effect information—Information about

requirements for effective institutional linkages between

national, regional, and subregional planning, assessment,

and policy analysis activities has not been gathered. Are

the accumulated results of planning, assessments, and

analysis at various levels consistent with principles of

sustainable forest management?

• Investment and incentive information—Information

about resources devoted to planning, assessments, and

policy analysis activities has not been assembled. What

is the magnitude of investments in planning, assessment,

and policy review activities? Are there legal and administrative processes for allocating resources to these

activities, and are the resources so allocated sufficient?

Are there legal or fiscal provisions for encouraging

these activities, and especially for encouraging crosssectoral planning?

• Effectiveness information—Comprehensive information

about the effectiveness of planning, assessment, and

policy analysis activities has not been compiled, except

in some very limited cases. Are there legal or administrative requirements to determine the efficiency and

effectiveness of these activities? What are appropriate

measures of success? Are there alternative, more effective ways to carry out planning, assessment, and policy

review activities?


• Monitoring information—Information about monitoring

capacity associated with planning, assessment, and

policy analysis activities has not been compiled systematically. Are there requirements to monitor the results

of these activities and to adapt them to changing

circumstances?

Recommendations

The information adequacy issues we have just discussed

must be resolved if we are to effectively assess institutional capacity to conduct planning, assessment, and

policy analysis and review activities as described in

Indicator 54. The following actions seem appropriate:

• Comprehensive review of capacity—Conduct a comprehensive review of current organizations that have

authority, direction, and resources to undertake forest

resource planning, assessment, and policy analysis and

review activities. The review should address each of

these activities as they occur at Federal, State, and local

levels of government, and should be designed to correct

the information deficiencies we have described. In addition, a systematic review of private-sector capability to

carry out these activities should be initiated.

• Responsibility for conducting review—Assign responsibility for conducting continuous reviews of planning,

assessment, and policy analysis and review capacities to

a specific current or new administrative unit located

within a Federal agency (such as the USDA Forest

Service’s State and Private Forestry unit, or the USDA

Forest Service’s National Forest System); a college or

university; or a nonprofit organization engaged in policy

review activities (e.g., Resources for the Future, Inc. or

the Pinchot Institute for Conservation). This responsibility should be assigned to an organization that has a

proven track record in conducting analyses and reviews

of programs at various levels of government and the

private sector.

• Devote resources to review—Invest sufficient resources

in the review to provide the type and quantity of information necessary to dramatically improve our understanding of current abilities to plan, assess, and analyze

conditions important to sustainable forestry.

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

Indicator 54 does not provide clear definitions of the

major activities to be examined. The terms and phrases

“forest-related planning,” “assessment,” “policy review,”

and “cross-sectoral planning and coordination” are poorly

defined. The specification problem is complicated further

by the introduction of new words and phrases (for example, “policy planning”). Each of these words or phrases

supposedly embodies an agreed-to set of concepts and

principles, but this is not always the case. Also, it is unclear

what units are to be included under the umbrella phrase

“institutional capacity.” We recommend that the indicator

be reworded to read: “. . . provides for periodic planning,

assessment, and policy reviews that embrace various forest

values and fosters the coordination of forest plans and

assessments with other sectors.”

Relationship to Other Indicators

Indicators 54 and 49 are very similar in their coverage.

Indicator 54 focuses on institutional capacity and Indicator

49 focuses on legal capacity, but institutional and legal

capacities are very closely related. Assessment of information resources might be facilitated if Indicators 49 and 54

were merged.

Indicator 54 overlaps with other indicators that relate to

concepts involving laws and values, public participation,

funding, and planning. More specifically, it overlaps with

Indicators 38 (investment in forests), 39 (investment in

research), 50 (public participation), 52 (special values), 53

(public involvement and education), 60 (information and

data), 61 (forest inventories), 62 (foreign country monitoring), 64 (value integrative methods), 65 (new technologies), and 66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest landowners of the United States: 1994.

Resour. Bull. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Bryson, J.M. 1988. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 311 p.

Carpenter, C.A. 2002. Conservation and management of forests in the

northern United States: a first approximation report. Durham, NH: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Area, State and

Private Forestry. [Not paged].

Coggins, G.C.; Wilkenson, C.F.; Leshy, J.D. 1993. Federal public land

and resources law. Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press. 1,092 p.

Cole, L.A. 1985. Forest resource planning: state of the States. Lexington,

KY: Council of State Governments. [Not paged].

Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Environmental quality: 1979:

annual report to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 365 p.

Dolgin, E.L.; Guilbert, T.G.P. 1974. Federal environmental law. St. Paul,

MN: West Publishing. 1,600 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 1985. Forest sector plans: coordination with nonforestry

interests and national plans for development. In: Proceedings, ninth

World Forestry Congress (Mexico City, Mexico). Rome, Italy: United

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Department of Forestry:

220-240.


Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of private

forest practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: an

assessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape of

State governments. St. Paul, MN: Department of Forest Resources,

University of Minnesota. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of State

agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry. 100(6):35-42.

Esseks, J.D.; Moulton, R.J. 2000. Evaluating the forest stewardship

program through a national survey of participating forestland owners.

De Kalb, IL: Northern Illinois University, Center for Government

Studies. 113 p.

Fisher, B.D.; Phillips, M.J. 1983. Legal environment of business. St. Paul,

MN: West Publishing. 893 p.

Goble, D.D.; Freyfogle, E.T. 2002. Federal wildlife statutes. New York:

Foundation Press. 664 p.

Gray, G.J.; Ellefson, P.V. 1987. Statewide forest resource planning programs: an evaluation of program administration and effectiveness. Sta.

Bull. 582-1987. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment

Station. 149 p.

Greeley, A.W. 1966. Integration of forest development plans and national

development plans: administration, operational problems and possible

solutions. In: Proceedings, sixth World Forestry Congress. Rome, Italy:

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Department of

Forestry. [Not paged].

Hardt, S.W. 1997. Federal land-use planning and its impact on resource

management decisions. In: Public Land Law II. Denver, CO: Rocky

Mountain Mineral Law Foundation: 4-1 to 4-55.

Johnson, K.N.; Swanson, F.; Herring, M.; Greene, S. 1999. Bioregional

assessments: science at the crossroads of management policy. Covelo,

CA: Island Press. 398 p.

Kilgore, M.A.; Salk, R. 2003. An assessment of State forest resources

planning in the northeast United States. Staff Pap. 170. St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 70 p.

Larsen, G.A.; Holden, D. Kapaldo [and others]. 1990. Synthesis of the

critique of land management planning. FS-452. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 24 p. Vol. I.

Mansfield, M.E. 1993. A primer of public land law. Washington Law

Review. 68(4):801-857.

McCann, B.D.; Ellefson, P.V. 1982. Organizational patterns and administrative procedures for State forest resources planning. Staff Pap. 31. St.

Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.

63 p.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate

and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2002].

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation

assessment report. http://ww.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date

accessed: November 2001].

Natural Resources Law Center. 1998. State role in western watershed

initiatives. Res. Rep. 18. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Natural

Resources Law Center. 96 p.

Natural Resources Law Center. 2000. Watershed source handbook. Res.

Rep. 24. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Natural Resources Law

Center. 454 p. + app.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Forest Service planning: setting

strategic direction under RPA. OTA-F-411, U.S. Congress. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 140 p.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1992a. Forest Service planning: summary. OTA-F-506, U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 22 p.

Office of Technology Assessment. 1992b. Forest Service planning:

accommodating uses, producing outputs, and sustaining ecosystems.

OTA-F-505, U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 206 p.

Plater, Z.J.B.; Abrahams, R.J.; Golfarb, W.; Graham, R.L. 1998. Environmental law and society: nature, law and society. St. Paul, MN: West

Publishing Company. 1,034 p.

Sample, V.A.; LeMaster, D.C. 1995. Natural resource strategic planning:

components and processes. PR-1095. Washington, DC: Pinchot

Institute for Conservation: [Not paged].

Schoenbaum, T.J.; Rosenburg, R.H. 1996. Environmental policy law.

Westbury, NY: Foundation Press. 1,012 p.

Teeguarden, D.E. 1990. National forest planning under RPA/NMFA: what

needs fixing? FS-462. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 66 p. Vol. 11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980. A guide to statewide forest resource planning. NA-TP-6. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Northeast

Area. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. Critique of land

management planning. FS 452–462. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. [Not paged]. Vols. 1–11.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Report of the

Forest Service: fiscal year 1998. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/pdb/98report/.

[Date accessed: November 2001]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000a. USDA Forest

Service strategic plan (2000 revision). FS-682. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 73 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000b. National Forest

System land resources management planning: final rule. 36 CFR Pts

217, 219. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 69 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The process predicament: how statutory, regulatory and administrative factors affect

national forest management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 40 p.


U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

2000. Natural Resources Conservation Service Strategic Plan: 2000-

2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service. 49 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000a.

BLM manual: land use planning (1601). http://www.blm.gov. [Date

accessed: August 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000b.

BLM land use planning handbook (H-1601-1). http://www.blm.gov.

[Date accessed: August 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1998. National

Park Service: park planning. Director’s Order 2. http://www.nps.gov/

pub_aff/index.htm. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000. National

Park Service strategic plan: FY 2001-2005. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 47 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2001. National

Park Service: conservation planning, environmental impact analysis,

and decisionmaking. Directors Order 12. http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/

index.htm. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. EPA strategic plan. EPA190-R—00-002. http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/epastrat.pdf. [Date

accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Fish and Wildlife Service strategic

plan: 2000-2005. http://www.fws.gov. [Date accessed: November

2001].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Refuge planning. Land use and

management series. Service manual, parts 600-699. http://www.fws.gov.

[Date accessed: November 2001].

West Publishing Company. 1997. Selected Federal environmental law

statutes. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 1,398 p.

Wickersham, J.H. 1994. The quiet revolution continues: the emerging

new model for State growth management statutes. Harvard Environmental Law Review. 18: 489-618.

Williams, J.E. 1987. Planning approaches in the Bureau of Land

Management. Trends. 24(2): 24-27.


The full text of Indicator 55 is as follows: Extent to which

the institutional framework supports the conservation and

sustainable management of forests, including the capacity

to develop and maintain human resource skills across

relevant disciplines (Montreal Process Working Group

2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

Forest sustainability and conservation are possible only if

persons engaged in the development and implementation of

forest resource policies and programs possess the necessary

knowledge and skills. Of special importance to sustainability is access to a broad range of disciplines (for example,

economics, statistics, ecology) and resource orientations

(for example, timber, water, recreation, wildlife). These

skills are developed by means of formal educational

programs, professional work experiences, and access to

continuing education opportunities. Relevant educational

programs are made available by a number of organizations

and are provided in various forms, including training by

professional societies, continuing education programs,

extension outreach programs, and professional technical

assistance programs (Montreal Process Working Group

2003, Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee

2000).

Useful data for measuring institutional capacity to accomplish Indicator 55 include compilations and descriptions of

laws and programs that promote conditions considered

essential to maintaining human resource skills across relevant disciplines. Examples of potentially useful information

are number of professionals by discipline (for example,

economics, statistics, ecology) and resource orientation

(for example, timber, water, recreation, wildlife); number

of degrees confirmed by formal educational institutions

(universities, colleges, technical schools); and continuing

education offerings by subject, enrollment, and manner of

presentation. Various other kinds of information can also

be of importance, such as the number of professionals

engaged directly in land management activities by discipline (or resource orientation) per unit of forested area

(Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Indicator 55 suggests various concepts and principles that

need to be addressed. For the purposes of this review,

human resource skills can be defined as interdisciplinary

professional knowledge and insight required to develop

and apply principles of sustainable forestry, and across

relevant disciplines can be defined as encompassing various

disciplines (for example, economics, statistics, ecology)

and various resources (timber, water, recreation, wildlife)

important to forest sustainability. The indicator implicitly

acknowledges the importance of information describing

integration across disciplines and across resources, as well

as information demonstrating the integration of biophysical

and social subject matter.

Conceptual Background

Human resources and the talent, ingenuity, and creativity

they represent are critical to the sustainability of forests

and the communities that depend on them. Ecological,

economic, and social skills are required, and these skills

must be integrated effectively. Both the quality and the

quantity of human resources are significant, since both can

have a direct bearing on the amount and quality of benefits

provided by forest and related natural resources.

Development of human resources begins with early experiences and education and continues through a lifetime of

exposure to various experiences and learning opportunities.

Much of the development of skills relevant to the management of forest resources occurs as part of formal educational processes at universities, colleges, or technical

schools. The skills and knowledge developed in these settings are maintained and increased by lifelong continuing

education and direct professional work experience. Most

of these opportunities for learning are provided or supported by employers and educational institutions.

The rapid pace of scientific discovery in the natural sciences

and the continuing improvement in understanding of human

systems and processes have combined to produce a substantial and dynamic body of knowledge that is relevant to

the sustainability of forests. This knowledge serves as a

foundation for the decisions made by forest resource professionals. For this reason, it is important that professionals

be exposed to this knowledge base on a continuing basis,

absorbing knowledge about a variety of disciplines important to informed assessments and judgments regarding

forest sustainability. Moreover, the occurrence of new and

unforseen developments affecting forest sustainability

1 Ellefson, Professor, and Hibbard, Research Specialist, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Human Resource Skills (Indicator 55)

Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard1
	

makes it imperative that this foundation of knowledge is

added to and updated continually. This enlargement and

updating of knowledge is essential if management decisions

are to be relevant and forest resources are to be sustained.

Current Institutional Capacity

Professional Workforce Capacity

Comprehensive and meaningful information about the professional workforce relevant to forest sustainability has not

been compiled. The available information often relates

only to certain categories of employers (for example, a

State agency) or to certain types of forestry professionals

(for example, professionals engaged in research). Conflicting definitions of “expert,” “authority,” or “professional”

are invariably at the core of the information problem. Who

has knowledge and skill that is relevant to forest sustainability, and what portion of the Nation’s workforce should

be classified as having the professional skills required to

ensure the sustainability of forests? Some suggest that the

relevance of professions to sustainability should be determined by the extent to which professionals focus on

certain resources associated with forests (for example,

professional timber manager, professional watershed manager), while others suggest that the professional sphere

should include all those who hold professional degrees and

are engaged in matters involving forests (for example,

meteorologists engaged in fire weather forecasting). Also

adding to information problems concerning professional

capacity is the reality that employees of some Federal and

State agencies with relatively new responsibilities involving

forest sustainability have yet to be properly acknowledged,

identified, and made party to existing information-gathering processes (for example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State

and local pollution control agencies, and watershed management districts). Because nationwide comprehensive

reviews of the forestry professional workforce have not

been made, what follows are examples of the public and

private professional workforces focused on matters

involving forest sustainability.

Federal agencies—The USDA Forest Service reported the

employment of 34,511 full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees in fiscal year 2001. This workforce was distributed

among agency programs as follows: National Forest System: 15,893 FTEs (46 percent); wildland fire management:

7,178 FTEs (21 percent); infrastructure improvement and

maintenance: 3,841 FTEs (11 percent); forest and rangeland research: 2,644 FTEs (8 percent); State, private, and

international programs: 774 FTEs (2 percent); land acquisition: 112 FTEs (less than 1 percent); and other employees

involved with trust funds and permanent and discretionary

appropriations: 4,069 FTEs (11 percent). The USDA Forest

Service also employs nearly 14,600 persons as part of the

Youth Conservation Corps, Job Corps, and Senior Community Service Employment Program. Forty-nine percent

of the agency’s workforce is composed of minorities,

women, and persons with disabilities, and approximately

one-third of these persons are in leadership positions (U.S.

Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2001).

Federal Government forestry research capacity is widely

dispersed across many Federal agencies. In 1995, the USDA

Forest Service reported the employment of 607 research

scientists distributed as follows: foresters: 138; ecologists,

biologists, botanists: 72; plant pathologists: 69; wildlife

and fishery biologists: 59; engineers: 44; economists,

social scientists: 28; forest products technologists: 25;

statisticians, mathematicians: 19; geneticists: 19; soil

scientists: 19; hydrologists: 13; and other disciplines such

as geologists, physicists, and range scientists: 102 (U.S.

Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2002a). A 2001

review of research capacity indicates that the agency

engaged the talents of 658 full-time-equivalent researchers,

or 49 percent of the total number employed by the agency,

forest industry, and academic institutions (table 1). The

number of research scientists employed by the agency

declined by more than 45 percent during the period 1985

through 1999. The largest proportional declines were in

the research forester and forest products technologist

classifications, whereas the largest increase occurred in

ecologists engaged in research (from 9 in 1985 to 50 in

1999) (National Research Council 2002).

The USDI Bureau of Land Management reported that in

fiscal year 2001 it employed 2,846 FTE persons in 5 activity areas with a direct bearing on resource sustainability.

These persons were assigned as follows: land resources

1,647 FTEs (of which 64 were assigned to the forest management subactivity); threatened and endangered species

management 193 FTEs; recreation management 622 FTEs;

and resource protection 384 FTEs (U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management 2002). In fiscal year

2001, the USDI National Park Service employed 2,730 FTE

employees in park resource stewardship and 4,628 FTE

employees in visitor services (U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Park Service 2002). The USDI Fish and

Wildlife Service employed 5,540 FTE employees in the

following resource management areas in fiscal year 2002:

ecological services 1,887 FTE employees; law enforcement

375 FTE employees; migratory bird management 553 FTE

employees; and refuge operations and management 2,725

FTE employees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).

Information about the professional workforce engaged in

forest sustainability activities in other Federal agencies

(for example, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.

Department of Commerce) has not been compiled.


State agencies—Various State government agencies employ

professional personnel to address matters of forest sustainability (Ellefson and others 2001, 2002). However, no

systematic and comprehensive compilation of the type and

number of these employees in State government has been

made. More than 22,000 persons were employed in State

forestry programs in 1998 (table 2) (National Association

of State Foresters 1998). Of this total, 26 percent were

considered to be managerial or professional employees.

Some States had relatively few such employees (Delaware

and New Hampshire had only 13); other States had many

more (California had 670 and Washington had 640). The

average number of such employees per State was approximately 120. Information of a similar nature is available for

1994 and 1996 and for some prior years.

Information about State government agency staff who

administer forest practice regulatory programs has been

gathered periodically since the early 1980s. In 2003, an

estimated 1,039 full-time-equivalent employees in 276 State

agencies were involved with programs regulating forestry

practices (Ellefson and others 2003). Of these full-timeequivalents, more than 470 were assigned to lead State

forestry agencies in the 10 States with comprehensive forest

practice laws, with California, Oregon, and Washington

accounting for 84 percent of the total (table 3). Staffing in

the 10 States with comprehensive programs increased by

nearly 124 percent from 1985 through 2003, but staffing in

some States remained the same or decreased slightly during

that period. In 1991, State lead forestry agencies employed

the following numbers (full-time-equivalents) of regulatory

staff per 100,000 acres of private timberland: Alaska 0.05,

California 1.26, Idaho 0.42, Maine 0.04, Massachusetts

0.59, Nevada 4.46, New Mexico 0.36, Oregon 0.75, and

Washington 1.26 (Ellefson and others 1995).

Private organizations—Information about the professional

workforce of private organizations focused on forest sustainability is particularly limited in quantity and quality.

Professionals who specialize in forest sustainability are

known to be employed in many private organizations,

including advocacy interest groups, business investment

firms, professional societies, timber harvesting companies,

forestry consulting firms, and corporations engaged in

industrial forestry operations. Forestry consultants typically are affiliated with corporations, partnerships, and

sole proprietorships, and most are general foresters, although

many have professional specialties within forestry. Their

clients include landowners, forest industries, investment

and financial industries, attorneys, government agencies,

bankers, trusts, and Native American corporations. Consulting foresters are often represented by the Association

of Consulting Foresters of America, which had 610

members in 38 States and 2 Canadian Provinces in 2002

(Association of Consulting Foresters in America 2002).

The most recent known national assessment of forest

resource professionals affiliated with industrial forestry

concerns was conducted in 1986 (Ellefson and Irving

1989). The assessment focused on 70 timberland-owning

companies that accounted for 72 percent (49.4 million

acres) of the Nation’s 1986 industrial timberland ownership

(68.6 million acres). The 70 companies employed 3,569

professional foresters, 445 of whom held administrative

Table 1—Forestry research scientist capacity, by sustainable forest

management focus and research institution (2001)

Major forestry research institutions

(full-time-equivalents in research)

USDA

Sustainable forest Forest Forest

management focus Service Academic industry Total

Biological diversity 112 136 10 258

Productive capacity 158 96 67 321

Ecosystem health 156 53 5 214

Soil and water 86 84 20 190

Carbon cycles 41 47 3 91

Socio-economics 80 114 9 203

Institutional framework 25 45 0 70

Total 658 575 114 1,347

Source: National Research Council (2002), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

(2002a).


Table 2—State government forestry program personnel, by State and type of personnel (1998)

Type of forestry program personnel

Administrative Seasonal and

State Managerial Professional Technical and clerical temporary Total

Alabama 82 119 199 39 0 439

Alaska * * * * * *

Arizona 8 19 6 5 4 42

Arkansas 5 65 216 17 37 340

California 592 78 3,057 628 1,500 5,855

Colorado 12 63 12 20 57 164

Connecticut 1 24 3 3 13 44

Delaware 4 9 9 2 2 26

Florida 27 348 715 27 150 1,267

Georgia 21 120 461 122 193 917

Hawaii 12 46 20 11 61 150

Idaho 24 132 5 50 210 421

Illinois 10 27 21 8 86 152

Indiana 20 63 * 64 228 375

Iowa 8 17 15 1 150 191

Kansas 4 8 3 4 25 44

Kentucky 43 61 113 24 80 321

Louisiana 18 73 200 19 220 530

Maine 4 120 20 12 15 171

Maryland 8 56 46 11 2 123

Massachusetts 5 27 13 7 * 52

Michigan 54 66 155 25 57 357

Minnesota 11 223 92 74 270 670

Mississippi 15 155 400 90 74 734

Missouri 23 58 134 11 37 263

Montana 26 104 28 16 76 250

Nebraska 5 20 3 9 5 42

Nevada 75 7 97 6 20 205

New Hampshire 7 6 23 5 25 66

New Jersey 33 33 31 10 30 137

New Mexico 12 36 2 9 2 61

New York 25 163 140 12 170 510

North Carolina 29 76 532 64 250 951

North Dakota 2 11 10 1 50 74

Ohio 25 55 15 25 120 240

Oklahoma 8 40 98 14 23 183

Oregon 160 222 17 110 527 1,036

Pennsylvania 74 130 85 60 200 549

Rhode Island 8 7 15 1 24 55

South Carolina 105 64 94 72 30 365

South Dakota 6 19 6 4 5 40

Tennessee 12 65 264 20 279 640

Texas 16 78 137 67 18 316

Utah 13 21 1 14 64 113

Vermont 10 34 11 9 2 66

Virginia 18 35 112 29 144 338

Washington 110 530 100 80 380 1,200

West Virginia 5 62 25 14 61 167

Wisconsin 7 223 148 18 398 794

Wyoming 4 16 12 5 3 40

Total 1,806 4,034 7,921 1,948 6,377 22,086

Note: Asterisk indicates information not available.

Source: National Association of State Foresters (1998).


positions at the central headquarters of their companies

(table 4). The remainder (3,124) were either directly

engaged in the management of company lands, procured

timber from noncompany land, or provided services to

owners of nonindustrial private forests. The 1,709 foresters

who were responsible primarily for forestry activities on

company land were responsible for more than 49.4 million

acres of timberland, an average of 28,814 acres of timberland per forester. The average acreage of of timberland per

forester varied depending on a company’s total timberland

ownership: 28,300 acres per forester for companies with

less than 300,000 acres of timberland, 24,917 acres per

forester for companies with 300,000 to 1 million acres,

and 32,246 acres per forester for companies with more

than 1 million acres of timberland. Such information is

available on a regional basis.

Formal Professional Education

Formal professional education, meaning professional education received prior to employment in a field of forestry

or related resource employment, is usually provided by

universities, colleges, and technical schools (Appendix A).

Because these institutions generally have responsibility for

education and research involving many subjects and disciplines, they are well suited to the task of providing educational experiences involving the broad array of subject

matter that is required to apply principles of forest sustainability. Unfortunately, information about this professional

educational landscape is not uniform across informationgathering organizations and not consistent in form over

time. However, meaningful information about capacity to

offer formal professional education involving forest

Table 3—Lead State forestry agency staffing for the administration of comprehensive forest practice regulatory

programs, by State (1985-2003)

Staffing (full-time equivalents)

State 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 2003

Alaska 6.5 6.5 4.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 7.9

California 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 74.0 83.0 94.0 124.5

Connecticut * * * * * * * 3.0

Idaho 4.5 5.5 5.5 8.0 10.0 8.0 13.7 20.0

Maine * * * * * 6.0 6.0 12.7

Massachusetts 16.0 16.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 16.0

Nevada 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0

New Mexico 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0

Oregon 44.1 48.2 48.2 53.6 62.6 64.3 64.3 94.0

Washington 58.1 58.1 73.0 73.0 77.5 77.5 112.8 176.0

Total 209.2 214.3 228.2 233.1 253.6 273.1 320.8 470.1

Note: Asterisk indicates information not available or program not established. Connecticut Forest Practices Act established June 28, 1991.

Source: Ellefson and others (1995, 2003).

Table 4—Industrial foresters employed by 70 leading U.S. wood-based companies,

by primary responsibility and region (1986)

Region

Responsibility North South West Total

Manage company-owned or leased land 226 1,082 401 1,709

Procure timber from noncompany land 121 983 122 1,226

Provide services to private woodland owners 28 153 8 189

Total 375 2,218 531 3,124

Note: Excludes 445 foresters engaged in administrative supporting activities at company headquarters.

Source: Ellefson and Irving (1989).


resources is collected by the Society of American Foresters

(SAF), the Society of Wood Science and Technology

(SWST), the Food and Agricultural Educational Information System, and the National Association of Professional

Forestry Schools and Colleges. Another source of relevant

information is the Southeastern Section of The Wildlife

Society, which offers accreditation to programs that meet

the Section’s criteria for professional education.

The Society of American Foresters is the organization officially charged with accreditation of professional forestry

educational programs in the United States. It judges such

programs in light of various criteria, including program

goals and objectives, curriculum, faculty and students,

physical facilities, and organizational and administrative

support (Society of American Foresters 2000). The broad

scope of these criteria reflects the forest resource professional’s need for a wide range of knowledge and skills. In

2001, colleges, universities, institutes, and other educational organizations offered 136 educational programs

involving forestry or natural resources (Appendix A). Of

these, the SAF accredited 47 as professional degree programs and recognized 23 as technical education programs

involving forest resources.

The Society of Wood Science Technology is the accrediting organization for professional programs leading to the

bachelor’s degree in wood science and wood technology.

Initiated in 1984, the SWST has accreditation standards

very similar to those applied by the Society of American

Foresters. As of 2001, 25 university-level programs were

known to offer professional education in wood science and

technology. The SWST accredited 9 of these 25 programs

(Society of Wood Science and Technology 2002).

The Food and Agricultural Education Information System

provides a broad range of higher education statistics related

to agricultural and natural resources. The System is a cooperative endeavor involving the USDA Cooperative State

Research, Extension, and Education Service and the

Department of Agricultural Economics of Texas A&M

University. Its purpose is to provide empirical information

for use in planning and coordinating efforts directed toward

supporting higher education in the food, agricultural, and

natural resource sciences. Focusing on topics such as

enrollment, faculty, degrees awarded, and placement, the

System annually surveys institutions that are members of

the National Association of Professional Forestry Schools

and Colleges (62 colleges or departments), the American

Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and Renewable

Resources (56 colleges or departments), the Society of

American Foresters (48 colleges, schools, or departments),

and the National Association of State Universities and

Land Grant Colleges/Academic Committee on Organization

and Policy/Academic Programs Section (85 departments

or colleges of agriculture, forestry, and renewable resources).

Some institutions are members of more than one of these

organizations. Not all institutions respond to the System’s

annual survey (the average response rate is about 70 percent); therefore, the following estimates of faculties, enrollment, and degrees granted may be considered conservative.

An estimated 1,596 resident full-time faculty were engaged

in forestry or natural resources instruction in 2001, of

whom 44 percent (705 faculty, or 360 full-time-equivalents)

had specializations directly related to forest resources

(table 5). The most common teaching specialities were

general forestry (18 percent of faculty), forest biology (15

percent), forest management (14 percent), and forest

sciences (12 percent). A significant number of faculty were

engaged in instruction involving broader environmental or

natural resource topics (891 faculty, or 449 full-time equivalents), nearly all of which are important to the development of professional skills that might be applied to the

use, management, and protection of forests. The most

common of these specialities were wildlife and wildlands

management, and renewable natural resources and conservation generally (table 5).

Students enrolled in forest resources and natural resources

instructional programs at colleges and universities totaled

31,650 in 2001. Of these students, only 29 percent (9,080)

had academic specializations directly related to forest

resources (table 6). Of this 29 percent, 5,360 students (59

percent of forest resource-focused students) had general

forestry or forest management as areas of specialization.

The largest number of forest resources-oriented students

were pursuing the baccalaureate degree (6,955 students).

A large number of students (22,570) were engaged in professional skills instruction involving wildlife and wildlands

management, environmental science and studies, and

general renewable natural resources and conservation.

These areas of specialization all have relevance to the use,

management, and protection of forests. In 2001, 7,921

degrees were awarded in the fields of forest resources

(27 percent) and natural resources (73 percent). Of these,

78 percent were baccalaureate degrees (table 7).

Indicator 55 emphasizes that the integration of various

subjects and disciplines into professional education is

critical to the sustainable management of forest resources.

Through program accreditation procedures and standards,

organizations such as the Society of American Foresters

provide direction as to the appropriate mixture of skills,

disciplines, and technical competencies within a forestry

curriculum. In 1998, employers rated the importance of

skills needed for long-term professional success as follows,

in descending order: ability to work in teams, ability to

address public concerns, understanding of requirements

for healthy ecosystems, adoption of innovative approaches


Table 5—Faculty (resident full-time) engaged in forest resources and natural resources instruction at colleges and

universities, by academic specialization and academic rank (2001)

Academic faculty rank

Associate Assistant

Academic specialization Professor professor professor Instructor Other Total

Forest resources

Forestry, general 64 ( 46) 31 ( 21) 29 ( 18) 3 ( 1) 2 ( 1) 129 ( 87)

Forest harvesting and production 6 ( 3) 3 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 9 ( 4)

Forest products technology 27 ( 9) 20 ( 5) 9 ( 4) 0 ( 0) 4 ( 2) 60 ( 20)

Timber harvesting 4 ( 1) 6 ( 2) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 10 ( 3)

Forest sciences 46 ( 17) 24 ( 10) 15 ( 8) 2 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 87 ( 35)

Forest biology 53 ( 32) 35 ( 17) 15 ( 11) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 103 ( 60)

Forest engineering 10 ( 6) 6 ( 2) 7 ( 3) 3 ( 2) 1 ( 1) 27 ( 14)

Forest hydrology 9 ( 4) 5 ( 1) 4 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 19 ( 7)

Forest management 40 ( 17) 32 ( 18) 22 ( 12) 3 ( 2) 0 ( 0) 97 ( 49)

Forest mensuration 23 ( 13) 15 ( 8) 10 ( 6) 1 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 49 ( 28)

Urban forestry 4 ( 2) 4 ( 2) 3 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 1 ( 1) 12 ( 6)

Wood science 29 ( 11) 11 ( 5) 5 ( 3) 0 ( 0) 1 ( 0) 46 ( 19)

Pulp and paper technology 12 ( 7) 5 ( 3) 8 ( 5) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 25 ( 15)

Forest soils 10 ( 4) 5 ( 2) 2 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 17 ( 7)

Forest sciences, other 9 ( 4) 3 ( 1) 3 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 15 ( 6)

Subtotal 346 (176) 205 ( 98) 132 ( 74) 13 ( 7) 9 ( 5) 705 (360)

Natural resources

Renewable natural resources and

conservation, general 72 ( 32) 44 ( 23) 29 ( 16) 0 ( 0) 3 ( 1) 148 ( 72)

Environmental science studies 33 ( 16) 21 ( 9) 30 ( 13) 2 ( 1) 3 ( 3) 89 ( 42)

Natural resources management

& policy 52 ( 19) 27 ( 15) 20 ( 7) 2 ( 1) 5 ( 1) 106 ( 43)

Natural resources law enforcement & protection service 3 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 3 ( 1)

Fishing & fisheries sciences

management 53 ( 22) 22 ( 12) 23 ( 11) 0 ( 0) 2 ( 1) 100 ( 46)

Wildlife & wildlands

management 79 ( 42) 44 ( 26) 37 ( 24) 2 ( 1) 0 ( 0) 162 ( 93)

Rangeland science management 57 ( 26) 23 ( 13) 14 ( 8) 0 ( 0) 1 ( 0) 95 ( 47)

Parks, recreation, & leisure

studies 21 ( 10) 18 ( 12) 14 ( 8) 1 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 55 ( 32)

Parks, recreation, & leisure

facilities management 10 ( 6) 7 ( 5) 10 ( 6) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 27 ( 17)

Water resources 16 ( 6) 14 ( 6) 6 ( 3) 0 ( 0) 0 ( 0) 36 ( 15)

Natural resources, other 33 ( 19) 17 ( 7) 18 ( 13) 1 ( 1) 1 ( 1) 70 ( 41)

Subtotal 429 (199) 237 (128) 201 (109) 8 ( 5) 16 ( 8) 891 (449)

Total 775 (375) 442 (226) 333 (183) 21 (12) 25 (13) 1,596 (809)

Note: Numbers in parentheses are full-time-equivalent faculty.

Source: Texas A&M University (2002).


Table 6—Student enrollment in forest resources and natural resources instruction at colleges and universities,

by academic specialization and type of degree (2001)

Academic program – enrollment

Two-year Baccalaureate Master’s Doctoral

Academic specialization program program program program Total

Forest resources

Forestry, general 45 2,672 354 170 3,241

Forest harvesting and production 31 50 3 4 88

Forest products technology 0 147 17 4 168

Timber harvesting 0 0 0 0 0

Forest sciences 0 436 206 145 787

Forest biology 0 464 180 139 783

Forest engineering 0 250 15 10 275

Forest hydrology 0 18 29 7 54

Forest management 25 1,756 187 151 2,119

Forest mensuration 0 0 32 20 52

Urban forestry 39 222 30 4 295

Wood science 0 281 64 53 398

Pulp and paper technology 0 543 11 9 563

Forest soils 0 5 15 4 24

Forest sciences, other 49 111 29 44 233

Subtotal 189 6,955 1,172 764 9,080

Natural resources

Renewable natural resources and

conservation, general 0 2,089 290 154 2,533

Environmental science studies 27 4,016 576 348 4,967

Natural resources management

and policy 0 1,389 135 108 1,632

Natural resources law enforcement

and protection service 0 33 0 0 33

Fishing and fisheries sciences

management 0 1,492 301 111 1,904

Wildlife and wildlands management 58 5,029 747 296 6,130

Rangeland science management 0 454 158 80 692

Parks, recreation, and leisure studies 0 1,338 86 56 1,480

Parks, recreation, and leisure

facilities management 0 1,387 133 38 1,558

Water resources 0 287 132 75 494

Natural resources, other 0 203 118 226 1,147

Subtotal 85 18,317 2,676 1,492 22,570

Total 274 25,272 3,848 2,256 31,650

Source: Texas A&M University (2002).


Table 7—Degrees granted in forest resources and natural resources at colleges and universities,

by academic specialization and type of degree (2001)

Academic program – degrees awarded

Two-year Baccalaureate Master’s Doctoral

Academic specialization program program program program Total

Forest resources

Forestry, general 43 529 198 16 786

Forest harvesting and production 12 30 2 0 44

Forest products technology 0 22 4 0 26

Timber harvesting * * * * *

Forest sciences 0 121 44 8 173

Forest biology 0 116 54 20 190

Forest engineering 0 79 2 0 81

Forest hydrology 0 6 9 1 16

Forest management 4 389 80 17 490

Forest mensuration 0 0 2 6 8

Urban forestry 15 60 2 0 77

Wood science 0 85 20 12 117

Pulp and paper technology 0 104 6 4 114

Forest soils 0 1 1 2 4

Forest sciences, other 26 2 7 2 37

Subtotal 100 1,544 431 88 2,163

Natural resources

Renewable natural resources and

conservation, general 0 446 94 28 568

Environmental science studies 7 1,197 184 46 1,434

Natural resources management

and policy 0 391 41 15 447

Fishing and fisheries sciences

management 0 306 96 19 421

Wildlife and wildlands management 29 1,153 230 38 1,450

Rangeland science management 0 93 43 22 158

Parks, recreation, and leisure studies 0 382 28 14 424

Parks, recreation, and leisure

facilities management 0 360 58 8 426

Water resources 0 79 50 4 133

Natural resources, other 0 242 19 36 297

Subtotal 36 4,649 843 230 5,758

Total 136 6,193 1,274 318 7,921

Note: Asterisk indicates information not available.

Source: Texas A&M University (2002).

to forest management, use of creative approaches for

working with the public, ability to evaluate and synthesize

information, and understanding of landscape-level planning

and management (Sample and others 1999). Employers

reported that the largest gaps between importance level

and performance level were in the areas of working in

teams and addressing public concerns.

Employers also have an interest in securing persons with

appropriate technical competencies (Sample and others

1999). In descending order of importance, the following

areas of competence were identified: ethics, written communication, oral communication, silvicultural systems,

managerial leadership, collaborative problem-solving,

resource management, forest ecology, forest inventory and


biometry, landscape analysis (Geographic Information

Systems), tree and plant species identification, human

resource management, watershed management, resource

economics, financial management, alternative dispute resolution, fire dynamics, organizational development, forest

soils, resource policy and law, wildlife biology, government relations, forest pathology, conservation biology,

forest engineering, transportation systems, rural community development, wildland and protected areas management, range management, and foreign languages. Except

for plant identification, the gaps between performance and

importance of a technical skill were largest for various

aspects of communicating with and managing people.

Continuing and Life-Long Education

Continuing education is generally viewed as those learning

experiences (or informational updates) occurring after

completion of formal professional education. The intent of

continuing education is to “constantly refine the sensitivities of professionals, enlarge their concepts, add to their

knowledge, and perfect their skills so they can discharge

their responsibilities within the context of their own personalities and the needs of society of which they are a

part.” (Houle 1980). Continuing education has always been

recognized as important to maintaining skills across

forestry disciplines (a need suggested by Indicator 55)

(Miller and Lewis 1999). However, only since the 1970s

have concepts of lifelong learning experiences for forest

resource professionals begun to gel and become formal

programs assumed by accountable institutions. This development has not occurred without acrimony, most notably

in struggles with issues involving (1) the purposes of

continuing education, (2) the emphasis that continuing

education should place on scientific and technical updates

that increase productivity of the workforce, and (3) the

development of the professional as a contributor to the

broader interests of society (Swanson and Arnold 1996).

Public and private organizations employing forest resource

professionals typically offer or require programs focused

on professional development and in-service education. The

extent and nature of these programs have not been documented comprehensively. Although they are not common,

legal requirements for provision of or encouragement of

continuing education opportunities for natural resource

professionals do exist at both the State and Federal Government levels. It appears that most of the relevant laws

simply require agencies to collaborate with universities

and related institutions on continuing education matters.

Examples of Federal legal requirements are as follows:

• TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE; Chapter 64—Agricultural

Research, Extension, and Teaching; Subchapter III—

Agricultural Research and Education Grants and Fellowships; Sec. 3152. Grants and fellowships for food and

agricultural sciences education; “(g) Continuing education. The Secretary shall conduct special programs with

colleges and universities, and with organizations in the

private sector, to support educational initiatives to enable

food and agricultural scientists and professionals to

maintain their knowledge of changing technology, the

expanding knowledge base, societal issues, and other

factors that impact the skills and competencies needed

to maintain the expertise base available to the agricultural system of the United States. The special programs

shall include grants and technical assistance.”

• TITLE 16—CONSERVATION; Chapter 36—Forest and

Rangeland and Renewable Resources Planning; Subchapter III—Extension Programs; Sec. 1672. General

program authorization: “(a) Types of programs; preconditions and cooperation with State program directors,

etc. The Secretary of Agriculture (hereinafter in this

subchapter referred to as the “Secretary”), under conditions the Secretary may prescribe and in cooperation

with the State directors of cooperative extension programs and eligible colleges and universities shall . . . (6)

assist in providing continuing education programs for

professionally trained individuals in fish and wildlife,

forest, range, and watershed management and related

fields...”

• TITLE 25—INDIANS; Chapter 33—National Indian

Forest Resources Management; Sec. 3114. Postgraduation recruitment, education and training programs: “The

Secretary shall maintain a program within the Division of

Forestry of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the ongoing

education and training of Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska

Native, and Indian forestry personnel. Such program

shall provide for (1) orientation training for Bureau of

Indian Affairs forestry personnel in tribal-Federal relations and responsibilities; (2) continuing technical

forestry education for Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska

Native, and tribal forestry personnel; and (3) developmental training of Indian and Alaska Native personnel

in forestland based enterprises and marketing.”

State governments also have legal authorities requiring

continuing education of natural resource professionals. In

some States, the requirements are part of general forest

resource law. This is the case in Minnesota, where the

State’s MN Sustainable Forest Resources Act encourages

“. . . timber harvesters and forest resource professionals to

establish continuing education programs within their

respective professions that promote sustainable forest

management . . . the Forest Resources Council shall, where

appropriate, facilitate the development of these programs”

(Minnesota Forest Resources Council 2002). In other

States, requirements for continuing education are integral

parts of licensing and regulatory programs. This is the

case in California, where the State’s Forest Practice Rules


authorize the Director of the California Division of Forestry

and Fire Protection to “. . . conduct timber operator education programs in addition to or in lieu of approving

programs conducted by others . . . courses shall use educational materials approved by the Director . . . and shall

address the content of rules established by the Board”

(California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

1997).

Continuing education opportunities are provided by a

great number of institutions with diverse expertise and

equally diverse capabilities. However, most continuing

education is provided by employers, and of that so offered,

90 percent is accomplished in collaboration with other

organizations (Cervero 2000). Colleges and universities

are major sources of continuing education in forestry and

related natural resource fields. Most, if not all, of the

colleges, universities, and technical schools previously

identified (Appendix A) provide such opportunities.

Examples are:

• Executive Management Program for Natural Resource

Managers, Pennsylvania State University

• Institute for Sustainable Natural Resource Continuing

Education Programs, University of Minnesota

• Continuing Education Coordinating Committee

Programs for Forestry and Range, Continuing

Education, Universities of Oregon and Washington

• Center for Environmental Continuing Education, Duke

University

• Consortium for Continuing Education for Ecosystem

Management, Northern and Southern Rocky Mountain

Universities

• Georgia Center for Continuing Education, School of

Forest Resources, University of Georgia

• Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands,

Department of Forest Sciences, Colorado State

University

• Center for Continuing Education, University of

Montana.

Federal natural resource agencies provide professional

resource managers with numerous opportunities for continuing education. For example, the USDA Forest Service

provides a two-track program involving a technical leadership component (workshops on fish habitat management,

wildlife habitat and plant management, vegetation monitoring, and managing forested ecosystems) and a program

leadership component (workshops on leadership and communication, natural resource policy, values and economics,

and program management) (U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service 2002b). A number of other Federal agencies

have similar programs that are relevant to needs of natural

resource professionals, for example:

• National Training Center, U.S. Geological Survey

• National Education and Training Center, USDI Fish and

Wildlife Service

• The Learning Place, USDI National Park Service

• National Training Center, USDI Bureau of Land

Management

• National Employee Development Center, USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service

• National Environmental Training Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

These Federal programs and centers provide a wide variety of continuing education opportunities, meeting the

needs of professional employees at various career stages

(entry-level employees, new employees, mid-career professionals). Most often, the programs consist of short

courses and workshops with some opportunities for longer

periods of formal study (university graduate education). In

addition to these single-agency-oriented programs, multiagency collaborative efforts exist to offer continuing

education opportunities for forest and natural resource

professionals. An example is the Carhart Natural Wilderness Training Center, which is sponsored by the USDI

Bureau of Land Management, USDI National Park Service,

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Forest Service.

The center provides educational opportunities for land

managers assigned wilderness management responsibilities.

State forestry and related natural resource agencies also

offer continuing education programs. Unfortunately, these

programs have not been identified systematically and have

not been assessed as to their focus and intensity. As with

Federal agency programs, State agency programs probably

take a variety of forms ranging from technical and scientific training to computer technology training, management

training, and workplace safety training. Most of these

opportunities are probably offered in conjunction with

other State, Federal, and local agencies or universities.

Continuing education opportunities for forest resource

professionals are also provided by various private organizations, including professional societies, industry associations, conservation groups, and environmental advocacy

organizations (Appendix B). As might be expected, these

opportunities address a diverse array of subjects and

disciplines. Some organizations, such as the Society of

American Foresters, offer member certification programs

that require some type of continuing education for certification maintenance. Other groups, such as the American

Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), encourage member
	

continuing education that emphasizes knowledge and application of sustainable forestry principles (AF&PA Sustainable Forestry Initiative). Some private organizations, such

as The Nature Conservancy, sponsor periodic workshops

and conferences focused on critical natural resource issues.

Many private corporations and interest groups involved in

forest management offer professional development or inservice training programs, and often require that their

employees participate in these programs.

Certification and Licensing Program Education

Institutional capacity to maintain human resource skill is

also present in occupational registration, certification, and

licensing programs focused on forest resource professionals

and timber harvesters. Most such programs have a required

educational component. The terminology of these programs

is confusing, but registration implies that individuals voluntarily list their names on an official roster managed by

some public or private organization; certification implies

that certain minimum qualifications (education, experience) are met; and licensing is exclusionary in that government authorization is required to engage in professional

practices (MacKay and others 1996). Such programs are

usually established to assure the public that only competent

persons are providing a service or practicing a trade.

Proponents of these programs argue that they are necessary

to protect public health and safety. Unfortunately, the

programs are beset by various problem areas, including

voluntary versus mandatory application, the relationship

between the professional and the general public, the procedure and substance of eligibility standards, the question

of educational requirements, the imposition of penalties

for noncompliance, and the responsibility for program

financial support (Garland 1996, MacKay and others 1996,

Young 1987).

State registration, certification, and licensing programs for

forestry professionals were in effect in 16 States in 1996

(Block 2000, Society of American Foresters 2001) (table 8).

All of these programs had minimum educational requirements; many had continuing education requirements. The

States with such programs are: voluntary registration—

Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, West Virginia; mandatory registration—Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina; mandatory licensing—Alabama,

California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire; and mandatory certification—Connecticut.

Florida’s forester registration program was allowed to

expire because there were too few public complaints to

justify the program.

Table 8—State-initiated professional forester registration and licensing programs, by State and program

characteristics (2001)

Voluntary or Foresters Term of

Type of mandatory registered license or Credentialing Continuing education

State program program or licensed registration requirements requirements

Alabama Licensing Mandatory 1,000 1 year E, ED 10 credits per year

Arkansas Registration Mandatory 450 1 year E, ED&EX 6 credits per year

California Licensing Mandatory 1,550 2 years E, ED&EX None

Connecticut Certification Mandatory 120 5 years E 6 credits per 2 years

Georgia Registration Mandatory 1,220 2 years E, ED&EX 12 credits per 2 years

Maine Licensing Mandatory 1,000 1 year E, ED&EX 12 credits per 2 years

Maryland Licensing Mandatory 206 2 years E, ED&EX 8 credits per 2 years

Massachusetts Licensing Mandatory 45 1 year E, ED&EX 20 credits per year

Michigan Registration Voluntary 500-600 Indefinite ED&EX None

Mississippi Registration Mandatory 2,000 2 years E, ED 16 credits per 2 years

New Hampshire Licensing Mandatory 350 2 years E, ED&EX 20 credits per 2 years

New Jersey Registration Voluntary 64 Indefinite ED&EX 6-9 credits per year

North Carolina Registration Mandatory 1,050 1 year E, ED&EX 10 credits per year

Oklahoma Registration Voluntary 116 1 year ED&EX None

South Carolina Registration Mandatory 1,600 1 year E, ED&EX 10 credits per year

West Virginia Registration Voluntary 350 1 year ED&EX 10 credits per year

E = written or oral exam; ED = education requirements only; EX = experience requirements only; ED&EX = education and experience requirements.

Connecticut’s certification program is the same as a licensing program.

Source: Society of American Foresters (2001).



State governments have established occupational registration, certification, and licensing programs focused on

timber harvesters or timber buyers (MacKay and others

1996). Twenty-five such programs existed in 1995, namely:

registration—Iowa, Rhode Island; certification—Alabama,

Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,

Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North

Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia; licensing—

California, Illinois, Massachusetts, West Virginia. Maryland

has both registration and certification programs, and West

Virginia has a certification and a licensing program.

Private organizations also engage in the design and implementation of occupational registration and certification

programs, nearly all of which have some continuing

education component. The American Forest and Paper

Association has a long history of working with States to

develop effective registration and certification programs

for timber harvesters. Similarly, the Society of American

Forests sponsors a Certified Forester Program. Professional

foresters granted certification status must complete 60

contact hours in continuing forestry education prior to

recertification every 3 years (Society of American

Foresters 2002).

Summary of Conditions

Professional education programs focused on maintaining

human resource skills are an important component of

forest sustainability and conservation. This review of

professional education programs suggests the following:

• Professional educational opportunities occur in some

form in virtually all public and private natural resource

and related organizations. Activities range from formal

professional education in a university setting to professional continuing education via electronic media, and

from forest practice workshops for timber harvesters to

national and international conferences on forest sustainability and conservation.

• Formal education of resource professionals is generally

provided by universities, colleges, and some technical

schools. These institutions offer students an opportunity

to select courses in a wide array of subjects and disciplines. Much information about these formal educational programs is available, but this information is

often questionable in quality and consistency.

• Resource professionals can get their formal education

by participating in university and college programs that

focus strictly on forest resources, or in broad natural

resource and environmental studies programs offered by

such institutions. The breadth of subjects and disciplines

applicable to the sustainability of forests makes this

possible. In 2001, less than half the faculty engaged in

the education of forest and natural resource professionals claimed forest resources as a primary area of

expertise.

• In recent years, formal professional education programs

appear to have increased student exposure to a wider

range of disciplines (for example, mathematics, economics, sociology, communication, administration,

conflict management) and a broader set of resources

(timber, water, wildlife, range, recreation). However, the

magnitude of this increase is unclear, as is the extent to

which integration of knowledge actually occurs across

disciplines and across resources.

• Formal programs educating forest resource professionals

are often required to conform to standards specified by

accreditation programs. The Society of American

Foresters (47 professional degree programs, 23 technical

education programs) and the Society of Wood Science

and Technology (9 baccalaureate degree programs) are

the most widely known organizations accrediting educational programs in professional forestry and wood

science. Except for professional wildlife education programs in the Southeast, other natural resource programs

(such as fisheries, range management, wildlife, water

resources, environmental conservation) are not known

to be subject to accreditation procedures.

• Continuing education programs for forest resource professionals are offered by a wide array of organizations,

and are often implemented in a partnership fashion. The

approaches to continuing education range from correspondence courses to formal doctoral programs, and

from short-term workshops to extensive international

forest-study tours. Universities and colleges are major

sources of continuing education, although employers

and some private organizations (including professional

associations and special-interest groups) provide such

opportunities. At least three Federal statutes provide for

the continuing education of forest resource and related

professionals.

• Occupational registration and certification programs

focused on forest resource professionals and timber

harvesters commonly require the maintenance of

professional skills applied to forest and related natural

resources. State governments have been most active in

developing and implementing such programs. At least

16 States registered, certified, or licensed forestry

professionals in 1996, and 25 States applied similar

occupational programs to timber harvesters in 1995.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues and

trends involving institutional capacity to promote human

resource skills. Examples of this literature (from which the


following issues and trends are drawn) are: Alford 1980,

Cervero 2000, DeSteiguer and Merrifield 1979, Ellefson

1989, Garland 1995, Houle 1980, Levine 1997, MacKay

and others 1996, National Research Council 2002, Sample

and others1999, Society of American Foresters 1994,

Swanson and Arnold 1996, Tombaugh 1998, Young 1987.

• Formal educational programs for professionals at the

university and college level are increasingly beleaguered

by shrinking financial support for university programs

generally, and by requirements to make educational

program decisions on the basis of rigorous cost-containment procedures. These conditions suggest that university

administrators need to be persuaded of the importance

of forestry education programs and that partnerships

between educational programs and the client groups

they serve need to be strengthened. Competition for

bright students and competent faculties will increase in

the years ahead.

• Accreditation mechanisms to promote higher standards

for formal professional education will increase. However, the use of accreditation mechanisms will raise

questions about assignment of responsibility for accreditation, accreditation across broader natural resource

interests (timber, wildlife, water, recreation, environmental studies), expansion of the competency standards

(technical versus managerial skills) used to judge program conditions, and accreditation of graduate education programs (programs beyond the first professional

degree).

• Continuing professional education is becoming increasingly important to forest sustainability. Notable in this

respect are employers’ increasing assumptions of responsibility for continuing education activities (in some

areas, surpassing that assumed by all other providers

combined); growth in collaborative institutional and

program arrangements (especially between universities

and employers) for providing continuing education; and

increased designation of continuing education as a

prerequisite for professional and related registration,

certification, and licensing.

• Continuing professional education as a system is

increasingly beset by concerns about the fundamental

intent of continuing education programs (for example,

updating professional knowledge generally versus

improving professional technical competency), and

about institutional governance and responsibility for

continuing education programs over long periods of

time (for example, assignment of responsibility and

leadership, mission and strategic planning, acquiring

and allocating resources, program monitoring and

evaluation, avoidance of destructive organizational

competition).

• Formal educational institutions that graduate resource

professionals who will be engaged in the sustainable

management of forests will increase in number and

diversity. The range of disciplines and resource specialities required for the sustainable management of forests

will draw talent from an increasing variety of formal

educational programs (for example, conservation

biology, environmental studies, landscape architecture,

and archeology), in addition to those traditionally

accredited as formal forestry education programs.

• The development of knowledge bases required to address

forest sustainability and conservation is increasingly

being hindered by severe declines in research capacity.

Federal research organizations in particular suffered

declines in numbers of full-time-equivalent researchers,

especially in the fields of entomology, plant pathology,

chemistry, soil science, and forest product technologies.

Information Adequacy

Specification

Information about maintaining human resource skills across

relevant disciplines has been assessed by various public and

private organizations. In 1999, the National Association of

State Foresters reported that only two States had abundant

information about professional and related education, that

nine had sufficient information about such activities, and

that three had little information. Thirty-four States reported

that they had no information concerning educational activities required to maintain the human resource skills needed

for forest sustainability. Three States reported that the

quality of their information was excellent, 10 that it was

adequate, and 1 that it was poor (National Association of

State Foresters 1999).

The Society of American Foresters, Society of Wood

Science Technology, and Food and Agriculture Educational

Information System are major sources of information

about professional education programs important to forest

sustainability. However, no known sources of comprehensive information exist for continuing education programs

focused on resource professionals, technicians, and timber

harvesters. Information about formal and continuing education programs in related fields (for example, conservation

biology, environmental conservation, wildlife management, recreation, law, and political science) has not been

gathered and synthesized comprehensively.

Measurement information—It is not known what variables should be measured, or how they should be measured,

to accurately portray conditions required to establish and

maintain necessary human resource skills. What conditions should be measured and subsequently assessed (for


example, characteristics of students, needs of employers,

quality of faculties, relevance of subjects, levels of investment)? What variables and measurement techniques are

appropriate given the large number and variety of institutions engaged in skill maintenance? What measurable

characteristics would best indicate that the human skills

needed to achieve sustainable forest management have

been accomplished? How often are these variables to be

measured? Are there special measurement needs associated with different types of educational activity (such as

formal professional education and continuing education)?

What information would most clearly identify trends?

Extent of activity information—Information about relevant formal and related educational activities has often

been assembled in an uncoordinated way. The result of

this is often information that depicts only current conditions and lacks local, regional, and national consistency.

The diversity of institutions offering education makes

information gathering difficult, although the Food and

Agriculture Educational Information System is certainly a

step in the right direction. What kinds of educational

programs exist at various geographic levels, and what

organizations support and present them? How large are

these programs? How are programs and program availability changing? Does the content of relevant skill-building

programs vary significantly from school to school, and if

so, why? What is the status of educational programs that

are sponsored by local government, and of conservation

education programs at community colleges and small

liberal-arts colleges? Are compilations of skill-building

information as currently conducted useful for guiding

policy and program direction? Is there a need to expand

and improve the focus of centralized reporting systems for

educational programs such as the Food and Agriculture

Educational Information System?

Responsible organization information—Organizations

actively engaged in relevant educational activities (and

especially in continuing education) have not been listed

comprehensively. What public and private organizations

are engaged in activities that maintain human skills across

resource disciplines? What authority assigns them responsibility, and is this authority being interpreted accurately?

Do some organizations have an advantage in providing

educational opportunities? What are these institutional

advantages? Do different public organizations engaging in

educational initiatives have similar or differing goals and

objectives, and are these goals and objectives consistent

with the maintenance of resource-oriented skills? What

roles do private organizations play in skill maintenance?

Are there organizational patterns in the public and private

sectors that, if known and publicized, would enhance

overall maintenance of human skills across relevant

disciplines?

Coordination information—Information about coordination of activities important to maintenance of human skills

has not been assembled. What are current patterns of coordination, including requirements and incentives for coordination? Do program conflicts exist between the various

entities engaged in education focused on the maintenance

of relevant skills? How might they be resolved productively? Do existing coordination efforts encourage coordination across relevant forest resource disciplines? Do they

ensure that the cumulative results of local, State, and

regionally undertaken education will lead to outcomes

consistent with national requirements for maintaining

human skills? Do they allow for incorporation of ad hoc

educational activities (such as special continuing education) occurring at various times and undertaken by various

levels and types of educational institutions? Are different

educational offerings comparable (for example, conservation biology and environmental conservation)? How is the

comparability of different educational programs determined, and by whom?

Procedure and specification information—Information

about standards for the development and implementation

of relevant educational programs has not been assembled.

Is there a broad agreed-to framework within which public

and private administrators of educational programs seek to

develop and implement programs relevant to maintaining

human skills important to forest sustainability? How are

such frameworks, including specific standards (such as the

SAF Accreditation Standards, and the timber harvester

continuing education standards) developed and implemented? Do national educational standards allow for

regional and subregional development of specialty education programs focused on maintaining certain resource

skills?

Scope of skill-maintaining information—Information

about educational programs for maintaining skills often

focuses only on a limited range of skills associated with

selected forest benefits. What capacity exists for maintaining skills across the wide range of values associated with

forests (timber, water, wildlife, recreation)? What can be

done to encourage the development of the wide range of

skills required for forest sustainability? Are different

resource-oriented institutions such as university departments and private continuing education programs complementary or competitive in this respect?

Investment and incentive information—Comprehensive

information about resources devoted to the maintenance of

skills across relevant disciplines has not been assembled

except in some very limited cases. What is the magnitude

of investment in various relevant educational activities,

and especially in continuing education? Are political and

administrative processes for allocating resources to these


activities effective and sufficient? Are there fiscal incentives for encouraging the development of skills across

relevant disciplines?

Effectiveness information—Comprehensive information

about the effectiveness of various approaches to maintaining relevant skills has not been compiled. Do existing

laws or administrative directives require that the efficiency

and effectiveness of skill-enhancing programs be assessed?

What are appropriate measures of success? What opinions

do stakeholders and interest groups have about these programs? What are the skill requirements for employment in

forest resource programs? Are educational programs

meeting these requirements?

Monitoring information—Information about the monitoring of programs designed to maintain skills relevant to

forest sustainability has not been assembled. Are there

legal or administrative requirements to monitor the results

of educational activities of various types? Who is or

should be responsible for gathering and analyzing such

information? Is the information from monitoring activities

being used to adapt educational programs to changing

circumstances? Is the information being collected and

analyzed in useful ways?

Recommendations

Indicator 55 suggests that it is necessary to develop and

maintain the institutional capacity to ensure availability of

the wide range of skills required to meet expectations for

the sustainable management of forest resources. Many

information needs must be addressed if we are to understand how to accomplish this. We recommend the following actions:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews. Conduct periodic and

comprehensive reviews of current authorities and public

and private institutions that direct and commit resources

to educational programs that teach resource skills important to forest sustainability. These reviews should gather

and synthesize information about the providers of educational efforts, the content of educational offerings,

coordination of activities by providers, and program

effectiveness and appropriateness.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews. Assign responsibility for conducting reviews of educational efforts to a

specific unit of a Federal agency, a college or university,

or other nonprofit organization. This responsibility

should be assigned to an organization that has a proven

track record in addressing the complexities of education

and human resource development within the forest

resource arena. Such organizations include the Society

of American Foresters, the National Association of Professional Schools and Colleges, and the administrators

of the Food and Agriculture Educational Information

System.

• Devote resources to the reviews. Invest sufficient

resources in the reviews to obtain the information

necessary to dramatically improve understanding of our

capacity to provide the skills essential to sustainable

forestry.

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

There are a number of definition, scope, and interpretation

problems in connection with Indicator 55. The breadth and

indefiniteness of the phrases “human resource skills” and

“relevant disciplines” make information gathering difficult.

Human resource skills may be classified by occupational

category (for example, professionals, timber harvesters,

technicians), function (for example, administration,

research, education), discipline (for example, economics,

ecology, statistics), and resource orientation (for example,

timber, water, recreation). Furthermore, the phrase “across

relevant disciplines” seems to refer to integration and interdisciplinary activities, yet it is problematic whether the

focus of interpretation should be on “across disciplines,”

“across resource orientations,” or “across social and

biological dimensions.” And continuing education seems

to be implied by the indicator. It should be borne in mind

that employers, as well as schools, are major providers of

continuing education.

The indicator might be better specified as institutional

capacity to “. . . develop and maintain professional and

related human skills across relevant disciplines and

resource orientations.”

Relationship to Other Indicators

Indicators 55 and 53 overlap with respect to extension

programs and making forest-related information available.

Indicator 55 also overlaps with Indicators 39 (level of

expenditure on research, development, and education), 44

(direct and indirect employment in the forest sector), 45

(average wage rates and injury rates), 46 (viability and

adaptability to changing economic conditions), 56 (infrastructure), 57 (enforcement), 59 (trade policies), 63

(development of scientific understanding), 64 (costs and

benefits), and 65 (new technologies).

Literature Cited

Alford, H.J. 1980. Power and conflict in continuing education: survival

and prosperity for all? Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers. 247 p.


Association of Consulting Foresters in America. 2002. History of

Association of Consulting Foresters. http://www.acf-foresters.com.

[Date accessed: December 2001].

Block, N.E. 2000. Credentialing and accreditation programs: taking the

forestry profession to the next level. Journal of Forestry. 98(4): 18-22.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 1997. California

forest practice rules. Sacramento, CA: California Department of

Forestry and Fire Protection. 240 p.

Cervero, R.M. 2000. Trends and issues in continuing professional education. In: Mott, V.W.; Daley, B.J., eds. Charting a course for continuing

professional education: reframing professional practice. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers: 5-18.

DeSteiguer, J.E.: Merrifield, R.G. 1979. The impact of the environmental

era on forestry education in North America. Unasylva. 31:21-25.

Ellefson, P.V. 1989. Investments in forest economics research. In:

Ellefson, P.V., ed. Forest resource economics and policy research:

strategic directions for the future. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 19-40.

Ellefson, P.V.; Irving, F.D. 1989. Industrial forester staffing of leading

wood-based companies: an examination of forester responsibilities.

Journal of Forestry. 87(3):42-44.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulation of private

forestry practices by State government. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: an

assessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape of

State government. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department

of Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of State

agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry. 100(6):35-42.

Ellefson, P.V.; Kilgore, M.A.; Hibbard, C.M. 2003. State government programs regulating forestry practices: current agencywide status and

review of program effectiveness. St. Paul, MN: University of

Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources; unpublished report. 120 p.

Garland, J.J. 1995. Accreditation, certification, and licensing of the forestry

workforce. In: Council on Forest Engineering, ed. Sustainability, forest

health and meeting the Nation’s needs for wood products. Raleigh, NC:

North Carolina State University, College of Forest Resources: 221-227.

Garland, J.J. 1996. Status of accreditation, certification, and licensing of

the U.S. harvesting workforce. In: Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, ed. Certification: environmental implications for forestry operations. Montreal, Canada: Canadian Pulp and Paper Association: E111-

E118.

Houle, C.O. 1980. Continuing learning in the professions. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 390 p.

Levine, A. 1997. Higher education’s status as a mature industry. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. 43(21):A8.

MacKay, D.G.; Ellefson, P.V.; Blinn, C.R.; Tillman, S.J. 1996. Registration, certification, and licensing programs: creating better timber

harvesters. Journal of Forestry. 94(7):27-31.

Miller, C.; Lewis, J.G. 1999. A contested past: forestry education in the

United States, 1898-1998. Journal of Forestry. 97(9):38-43.

Minnesota Forest Resources Council 2002. Forest Resources Continuing

Education Program. http://www.frc.state.mn.us. [Date accessed:

December 2001].

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate

and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2002].

National Association of State Foresters. 1998. State forestry statistics:

1998. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date accessed:

November 2001].

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation assessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date accessed:

December 2001].

National Research Council. 2002. National capacity in forestry research.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 144 p.

Sample, V.A.; Ringgold, P.C.; Block, N.E.; Giltmier, J.W. 1999. Forestry

education: adapting to the changing demands on professionals. Journal

of Forestry. 97(9): 4-10.

Society of American Foresters. 1994. Education for forest resources: new

directions for the 21st century. Conference Proceedings. Bethesda,

MD: Society of American Foresters. [Not paged].

Society of American Foresters. 2000. Accreditation handbook: standards,

procedures, and guidelines for accrediting educational programs in

professional forestry. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters.

29 p.

Society of American Foresters. 2001. SAF task force report on forester

registration and licensing: 2001. http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/

LRCinfo.cfm. [Date accessed: January 2002].

Society of American Foresters 2002. SAF Certified Forester Program.

http://www.safnet.org/certifiedforester/index.cfm. [Date accessed:

December 2001]

Society of Wood Science and Technology. 2002. Standards and procedures for accreditation of wood science and technology programs.

http://www.swst.org. [Date accessed: January 2002].

Swanson, R.A.; Arnold, D.E. 1996. The purpose of human resource

development is to improve organizational performance. In: Rowden,

R.W., ed. New directions for adult and continuing education. 72. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. [Not paged].

Texas A&M University. 2002. Food and agriculture education information system: agriculture, forestry and renewable resource higher

education statistics. College Station, TX: Department of Agricultural

Economics. http://faeis.usda.gov. [Date accessed: January 2002].

Tombaugh, L.W. 1998. The forces of change driving forestry education.

Journal of Forestry. 96(2):4-7.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2001. USDA Forest

Service FY 2000 and FY 2001 annual GPA performance plan. http://

www.fs.fed.us/pl/rpa/AnnPlan. [Date accessed: December 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2002a. A review of the

capacity to conduct and apply research and development aimed at

improving forest management and delivery of forest goods and services. Review draft, March 7, 2002. Washington, DC: [Not paged].


U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2002b. Continuing education program for natural resource professionals. http://www.fs.fed.us/

biology/education/mission.html. [Date accessed: January 2002].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002.

Fiscal Year 2002 proposed budget. http://www.blm.gov/budget/

index.html. [Date accessed: January 2002].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2002. Fiscal Year

2003 proposed budget. http://www.nps.gov/pub_aff/index.htm. [Date

accessed: January 2002].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Fiscal Year 2003 proposed budget.

http://budget.fws.gov. [Date accessed: January 2002].

Young, S.D. 1987. The rule of experts: Occupational licensing in America.

Washington, DC: CATO Institute. 99 p.


Appendix A

Selected Colleges, Universities, and Technical Schools with Professional, Technical,

or Pre-Professional Education in Forestry or Related Natural Resources, 2001

Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, GA (3)

Alabama A & M University, AL(1)

Alcorn State University, MS (1)

Allegheny College, MD (3)

Arizona State University, AZ

Auburn University, AL (1,2)

Augustana College, IL

Ball State University, IN

Brown University, RI

California Polytechnic State University, CA (2)

Central Lakes College, MN

Central Oregon Community College, OR (3)

Chemeketa Community College, OR

Clark University, MA

Clemson University, SC (1,2)

College of the Redwoods, CA

College of William and Mary, VA

Colorado State University, CO (1,2)

Columbia University, NY

Cornell University, NY (1)

Dabney S. Lancaster Community College, VA (3)

Delaware State University, DE (1)

Duke University, NC (2)

Eastern Oklahoma State College, OK (3)

Florida A & M University, FL (1)

Florida Atlantic University, FL

Hocking College, OH (3)

Horry-Georgetown Technical College, SC (3)

Humboldt State University, CA (2)

Indiana University, IN

Iowa State University, IA (1,2)

Kansas State University, KA (1)

Kentucky State University, KY (1)

Lake City Community College, FL (3)

Langston University, OK (1)

Lincoln University, MO (1)

Louisiana State University, LA (1,2)

Louisiana Tech University, LA (2)

Lurleen B. Wallace State Junior College, AL (3)

Michigan State University, MI (1,2)

Michigan Technological University, MI (2,3)

Mississippi State University, MS (1,2)

Montana State University-Bozeman, MT (1)

Mt. Hood Community College, OR

New Mexico State University, NM (1)

New York State Ranger School, NY

North Carolina A&T University, NC (1)

North Carolina State University, NC (1,2)

North Dakota State University, ND (1)

Northern Arizona University, AZ (2)

Northeastern Illinois College, IL

Ohio State University, OH (1,2)

Oklahoma State University, OK (1,2)

Oregon State University, OR (1,2)

Oregon Graduate Institute of Science & Technology, OR

Paper Industry Management Association, IL

Paul Smith’s College of Arts and Sciences, NY (3)

Pennsylvania College of Technology, PA (3)

Pennsylvania State University, PA (1,2)

Pennsylvania State University-Mont Alto, PA (3)

Pittsburgh State University, KS

Princeton University, NJ

Purdue University, IN (1,2)

Reedy College, CA (3)

Rutgers University, NJ

San Diego State University, CA

Santa Rosa Junior College, CA

Sierra College, CA

South Carolina State University, SC (1)

South Dakota State University, SD (1)

Southern University, LA (1)

Southern Illinois University, IL (2)

Southeastern Illinois College, IL (3)

Southwest Texas State University, TX

Southwestern Oregon Community College, OR

Spokane Community College, WA (3)

State University of New York, NY (2,3)

Stephen F. Austin University, TX (2)

Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry, GA

Tennessee State University, TN (1)

Texas A & M University, TX (1,2)

Texas Tech University, TX

Tuskegee University, AL (1)

University of Alaska, AK (1,2)

University of Arizona, AZ (1)

University of Arkansas, AR (1,2)

University of California-Berkeley, CA (1,2)

University of California-Davis, CA

University of Colorado, CO

University of Connecticut, CT (1)

University of Delaware, DL (1)

University of Denver, CO

University of Florida, FL (1,2)

University of Georgia, GA (1,2)

University of Hawaii, HI (1)

University of Idaho, ID (1,2)

University of Illinois, IL (1,2)

University of Kansas, KS

University of Kentucky, KY (1,2)

(continued)


1 = Land grant university; 2 = Society of American Foresters accredited professional degree program; and 3 = Society of American Foresters recognized

technical educational program.

Appendix A

Selected Colleges, Universities, and Technical Schools with Professional, Technical,

or Pre-Professional Education in Forestry or Related Natural Resources, 2001 (continued)

University of Maine, ME (1,2)

University of Maine-Fort Kent, ME (3)

University of Maryland, MD (1)

University of Massachusetts, MA (1,2)

University of Michigan, MI (2)

University of Minnesota-Duluth, MN

University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, MN (1,2)

University of Missouri, MO (1)

University of Montana, MT (2)

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NE (1)

University of Nevada, NV (1)

University of New Hampshire, NH (1,2,3)

University of Oregon, OR

University of Pennsylvania, PA

University of Rhode Island, RI (1)

University of the South, TN

University of Tennessee, TN (1,2)

University of Vermont, VT (1,2)

University of Virginia, VA

University of Washington, WA (2)

University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI (1,2)

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, WI (2)

University of Wyoming, WY

Utah State University, UT (1,2)

Vermillion Community College, MN (3)

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, VA (1,2)

Virginia State University, VA

Washington State University, WA (1,2)

West Virginia University, WA (1,2)

Western Michigan University, MI

Yale University, CT (2)


Appendix B

Private Organizations Providing Continuing Education Opportunities

Involving Timber and Wood-Based Commodities

Alaska Forest Association

American Chestnut Foundation

American Conifer Society

American Forest and Paper Association

American Institute of Biological

Sciences

American Institute of Chemical

Engineers-Forest Products Division

American Institute of Timber

Construction

American Plywood Association

American Wood Council

American Wood Preservers Institute

Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers

Architectural Woodwork Institute

Arkansas Wood Manufacturers

Association

Association for Temperate

Agroforestry

California Forest Products Commission

California Forestry Association

California Redwood Association

Composite Panel Association

Empire State Forest Products

Association

Empire State Paper Research Institute

Evergreen Partnership

Florida Wood Council

Forest Industries Telecommunications

Forest Industry Training and Education

Council

Forest Landowners of California

Forest Products Society

Georgia Forestry Association

Hardwood Manufacturers Association

Hardwood Plywood and Veneer

Association

Hardwood Utilization Consortium

Hawaii Forest Industry Association

Idaho Forest Products Commission

Independent Forest Products

Association

Indiana Lumber and Builders’ Supply

Association

Intermountain Forest Industry

Association

Intermountain Woodnet

International Association of Pallet

Recyclers

International Society of Wood

Anatomists

Kentucky Wood Products

Competitiveness Corporation

Lignin Institute

Lumberman’s Association of Texas

Lumbermen’s Credit Association

Maine Council on Sustainable Forest

Management

Maine Wood Products Association

Michigan Forest Association

Michigan Lumber and Building

Materials Association

Minnesota Forest Industries

Mississippi Forestry Association

National Arbor Day Foundation

National Forest Foundation

National Hardwood Lumber

Association

Material Dealers Association

National Lumber and Building

Material Dealers Association

National Paper Trade Association

National Particleboard Association

North American Horse and Mule

Loggers Association

North American Wholesale Lumber

Association

Northeastern Retail Lumber

Association

Northwest Forestry Association

Northwest Timber Workers Resource

Council

Northwest Wood Products Association

Ohio Forestry Association

Oregon Forest Industries Council

Particleboard and Medium Density

Fiberboard Institute

Pulp and Paperworkers Resource

Council

Secondary Wood Products Consortium

Society of Wood Science and

Technology

Southern Forest Products Association

Southern Lumber Exporters

Association

Southern Pine Council

Technical Association of the Pulp and

Paper Industry

Temperate Forest Foundation

Tennessee Forestry Association

Timber Trade Federation

Washington Contract Loggers

Association

Washington Forest Protection

Association

Western Forestry and Conservation

Association

Western Red Cedar Lumber

Association

Western Wood Products Association

World Timber Network
	

The full text of Indicator 56 is as follows: Extent to which

the institutional framework supports the conservation and

sustainable management of forests, including the capacity

to develop and maintain efficient physical infrastructure

to facilitate the supply of forest products and services and

support forest management (Montreal Process Working

Group 2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

Capital resources that take the form of physical infrastructure are essential to the management of forests and ultimately to economic development and the quality of life in

rural forested areas. Government investments in public

infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewerage and sanitation systems, schools, parks, and other physical facilities

are important complements to the capital investments made

by private firms (such as plants and equipment). Together

they constitute the capital basis for protecting forests and

related resources and for producing the goods and services

that help to sustain the economies of forested areas

(Montreal Process Working Group 2003, Montreal Process

Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Data useful for measuring this indicator are compilations

and descriptions of laws and programs at national and

subnational levels that promote investments in forest

infrastructure. From a forest resource perspective, useful

information includes types, locations, and magnitudes of

forest infrastructure (for example, campgrounds, roads,

trails, signs, fire lookouts, interpretative and educational

facilities), forest area judged to be adequately serviced by

existing infrastructure and plans for future infrastructure

investments, portion of existing infrastructure being

managed to designated standards and needs, and extent to

which public- and private-sector budgets devote financial

resources to new construction of infrastructure, as opposed

to maintenance of existing infrastructure. Also relevant is

the extent to which local, regional, and national inventories of infrastructure are undertaken and the degree to

which the information provided by these inventories is

relevant to decisions regarding the use, management, and

protection of forests. In assessing this indicator, one

should be aware that measurements can be interpreted in

various ways. For example, while roads are important to

most interests in the sustainability of forests, some segments of society may consider roads to have a negative

impact on the importance of certain forest values

(Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Concepts and principles that are to be identified and

addressed are suggested by the indicator. To guide this

review, brief definitions of three important concepts are:

physical infrastructure—the underlying, large-scale, capital

assets (physical and tangible) required in order to use,

manage, and protect forest resources; facilitate the supply

of—the ability of infrastructure to efficiently expedite the

availability of services and products from forests; and

support forest management—the ability of infrastructure to

provide for activities considered essential to tending or

administering forests and related resources.

The definition of physical infrastructure as used here does

not preclude consideration of other types of infrastructure.

For example, physical infrastructure can include at least

four basic elements, i.e., forest ecosystems as infrastructure

(“green infrastructure”), forestland base infrastructure

(trails, roads, recreation facilities), processing and manufacturing infrastructure (manufacturing and fabricating

facilities), and broad forest community infrastructure

(such as schools, hospitals, highways, libraries, museums,

and sanitation systems) that promotes health and safety

interests and contributes to the quality of life in towns,

cities, and rural areas. Although these categories are not

mutually exclusive, they do provide a useful structure for

review and assessment of information concerning forest

infrastructure. We do not think that it would be useful to

interpret Indicator 56 as applying to green infrastructure,

as such information is presented in great depth in discussions of indicators associated with Criteria One through

Six.

Conceptual Background

The notion of infrastructure conveys the sense of basic,

underlying framework or features. Frequently it is used to

refer to technical or structural features such as military

installations, communication systems, and the transportation networks of an organization, city, or nation. The infrastructure of a particular locality or region provides the

physical basis for economic and social life for those who

live and work in that area. Whether running a business,

raising a family, or merely visiting from another region,

people depend on—and to varying degrees, come to

1 Ellefson, Professor, and Hibbard, Research Specialist, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Physical Infrastructure (Indicator 56)

Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard1



expect—a core framework of services to be available,

from roads and communication systems to schools and

medical facilities. With such a framework in place, people

can pursue the myriad activities that are the basis of their

everyday lives. Unless this basic underpinning is available,

many activities necessary to a well-functioning society,

including the sustaining of forest resources, may not be

possible (Fox 1987, Lewis and others 1993, Munnel 1990,

Sears and others 1990, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1990, Vaughn 1983).

People who live and work in rural forested areas utilize a

variety of resources in pursuing their interests. Some

resources are used to provide goods and services that are

directly consumed, while others are used as a resource in

the production of other products (for example, timber as

an input in the production of wood products). Within such

a context, resources can take different forms, including

biophysical resources (trees, water, wildlife), human

resources (labor, management skills), and capital resources

(plants and equipment). The latter are frequently viewed

as capital assets directly supportive of manufacturing

processes, but important capital resources also include

roads, bridges, electricity, communication systems, health

and educational facilities, and law enforcement and fire

protection services, all of which are essential to the variety

of productive and consumptive activities of a community,

region, or State. Although the term infrastructure can be

applied to all three types of resources, it is usually

employed as a descriptor for capital resources.

The capital resources important to the infrastructure of an

area or community may originate from private as well as

public sources. Private capital can originate from various

internal sources (such as reinvested business revenue) and

from a myriad of external sources (including public and

private lending institutions). Private investments in infrastructure are most commonly viewed as physical capital

(investments in plants, facilities, and equipment) required

in order to carry out primary production processes. However, some firms consider capital to include the human

capital (investments in work-related training, employee

health and educational benefits) required to enhance labor

and managerial skills, and the community capital (investments in the establishment and maintenance of community

service organizations via donations and sponsorship of

events) needed to provide a wholesome and secure community for employees and supportive citizens. In some

cases, the financial resources of lending institutions are

considered to be capital. These financial resources are

made available to private enterprises for a variety of

purposes, including the establishment of certain kinds of

infrastructure that have broader social purposes (for

example, pollution control facilities).

The public sector is also a major contributor to infrastructure. Federal, State, and local governments invest accrued

or borrowed revenue directly (as in the construction of

roads and dams) or indirectly (as in cost-share projects

with private enterprises) in infrastructure as a means of

enhancing private-sector production and improving the

quality of life of individuals and communities in general

(table 1). Government investment in infrastructure is a

recognition that even with available private capital, firms

and businesses may need additional investment in infrastructure if they are to be productive and operate efficiently.

Table 1—Functional categorization scheme for public infrastructure, by type of facility

Service facilities Production facilities

Education: Elementary, middle, and secondary

schools; public libraries

Health: Hospitals, nursing homes, ambulatory

care facilities (outpatient, dental, health),

residential facilities (dependent children,

emotionally disturbed persons, handicapped

persons, persons with drug abuse problems),

emergency vehicle services

Justice: Jails and prisons, law enforcement

facilities

Recreation: Community recreation facilities

Transportation: Railroads, airports, streets and

highways, inter- and intra-community transit

Source: Vaughan (1983).

Energy: Direct power suppliers

Fire safety: Fire stations, communication systems,

water supply and storage facilities

Solid waste: Disposal sites, collection facilities

and equipment

Telecommunications: Cable and satellite

television, over-air television, disaster preparation

facilities

Wastewater: Sewer mains and collection systems,

treatment and disposal systems

Water supply: Community systems (storage

facilities, treatment facilities, delivery systems),

on-site wells and cisterns


There must be roads and bridges in place to permit businesses to obtain raw materials and to transport products

and services to markets, just as business must have access

to facilities that provide electricity, water, wastewater

treatment, and communications. The magnitude of such

investments and the distribution of their benefits over

many firms and communities positions government in a

leading and responsible role for their provision.

Public infrastructure investments are often popularly

viewed as supportive only of businesses or economic enterprises. In reality, however, such investments help support a

wide variety of social functions considered necessary to

healthy and wholesome communities. Public school buildings, for example, are an obvious necessity. Likewise, police

and fire protection services require adequate physical facilities and equipment if they are to provide citizens the

opportunity to live and work in an atmosphere of security.

Parks and recreation facilities give citizens the opportunity

to experience the aesthetic dimension of natural surroundings in a relaxed and unconstrained fashion.

Effective and well-functioning infrastructure depends on

well-planned investments that are efficient and of an

appropriate scale. For this reason, guiding principles have

been provided for Federal investments in infrastructure

(for transportation, water resources, energy, and environmental protection) (Presidential Executive Order 1994).

Infrastructure investment and management should be

based on systematic analysis of benefits and costs. Persons

who are responsible for infrastructure investment and

management should consider the full range of options

available for accomplishing desired objectives, quantify

benefits and costs to the extent possible, discount costs

over the full life-cycle of projects, and directly and explicitly address project uncertainty. Infrastructure investments and management require efficient management of

infrastructure facilities (sound operational practices, appropriate pricing of services provided), active participation of

the private sector (appropriate private-sector ownership,

financing, construction, operation), and sharing of project

development with State and local governments.

Current Institutional Capacity

Private-Sector Capacity

Private sources of information describing infrastructure

investments of relevance to sustaining forests are few, and

the amount of information they provide is not very extensive. The information often originates from many uncoordinated sources, is seldom capable of being compared in

any meaningful way, and, because of definition problems

and inconsistent time periods assessed, poses real problems

for sound analysis over long periods of time. In addition,

nearly all of the published information focuses on wood

product manufacturing and processing. With the notable

exception of information about private investments in the

infrastructure necessary for the prevention of water pollution, very little information is devoted to descriptions of

infrastructure devoted to other forest benefits (such as

water, recreation, range, and wilderness). Notable in this

respect is the lack of information about infrastructure that

supports outdoor recreation on private forestland (for

example, roads, bridges, campsites, shelters) (Teasley and

others 1999).

Some private publishers periodically present information

about the extent of capital assets in certain segments of the

wood-based industry, most notably the number of processing facilities (usually referred to as mills) and the number

of new or closed manufacturing facilities. Examples of

such publishers or publications are Miller Freeman Publications,2 Business Week (R&D expenditures), Maharashtra

Industry Directory, Wood Science & Marketing (University of Washington), Forbes (annual report on American

industry), and WoodCenter.net. Information on infrastructure can also be gleaned from the annual reports of

individual companies and from a variety of privately

sponsored Web sites.

Trade associations representing the wood-based industry

also periodically publish information regarding plant capacity and capital investments in various types of infrastructure. An example is the American Forest and Paper Association, which annually reports capital expenditures for paper

and wood product manufacturing, primary mills and converting plants, and environmental protection expenditures

(tables 2 and 3) (American Forest and Paper Association

2000). Much of the information reported by the association has been published previously by the U.S. Census

Bureau.

Federal Government agencies are active in gathering and

reporting information about relevant manufacturing establishments and capital investments. Most notable are the

U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis. To the extent that establishments and capital

expenditures are reflective of infrastructure conditions, the

U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census of Manufacturing

and Report on Annual Capital Expenditures present a

wealth of statistical information by State and industry

(table 4) (U.S. Census Bureau 2001a, 2001b). In some

2 Miller Freeman directories include Lockwood-Post’s Directory of Pulp,

Paper and Allied Trades; Pulp and Paper North American Fact Book;

Lumber and Panel North American Fact Book; Directory of Wood

Products Industry; Secondary Wood Products Manufacturers Directory;

and Pulp and Paper Company Profiles (Vol. I: United States, Volume II:

Canada).


Table 2—Capital expenditures in paper manufacturing and wood product manufacturing in the

United States, by region—1997, 1998, and 1999

Paper manufacturing Wood product manufacturing

Region 1997 1998 1999 1997 1998 1999

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - thousands of dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Northeast 1,366,253 1,584,799 1,236,995 238,100 302,123 245,704

North Central 1,973,850 2,113,766 2,059,378 537,222 552,908 645,781

South 4,397,278 3,952,498 3,030,662 1,330,272 1,330,272 1,399,972

West 818,342 818,342 670,345 610,997 610,997 727,105

Pacific 695,790 695,790 594,264 453,730 453,730 602,197

Total 9,251,723 8,492,703 6,997,380 2,812,452 2,796,300 3,018,562

Source: American Forest and Paper Association (2000).

Table 3—Capital expenditures for environmental protection by

the pulp and paper industry in the United States, by type of

resource protected (1990-2000)

Investment by resource protected Total

Year investments Water Air Land

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - millions of dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1990 1,292 579 478 235

1991 1,343 676 479 189

1992 1,048 486 379 183

1993 737 337 275 125

1994 721 286 249 186

1995 625 309 219 97

1996 740 352 251 137

1997 588 325 151 112

1998 627 312 129 186

1999 718 360 290 68

2000 1,117 382 657 78

Note: Land category includes investments to curb pollutants such as sold waste.

Source: American Forest and Paper Association (2000).

Table 4—Establishments and capital expenditure of wood-based industry in the

United States, by type of industry (1997)

Capital

Industry Establishments expenditures 1997

thousands of dollars

Logging 13,533 780,601

Sawmills and wood preservation 4,841 1,161,016

Veneer, plywood, engineered wood products 1,841 762,558

Millwork, containers, other wood products 10,685 945,660

Pulp, paper, paperboard mills 546 5,727,647

Converted paper products 5,322 2,867,486

Wood furniture 8,061 255,044

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2001a).


cases, information reporting is hampered by U.S. Census

Bureau rules limiting disclosure of information when

doing so would reveal the identity of individual firms.

Nevertheless, the information reported is very useful.

Federal Government Capacity

Information regarding Federal authority and institutional

capacity to develop and maintain infrastructure is scattered

among various sources and seldom has as a central focus

the importance of infrastructure in sustaining certain forest

conditions. Legal authority to expend appropriated funds

on infrastructure is seldom stated specifically in statutes

addressing forests and related resources. Usually, such

authority is specified as part of broader authority to spend

monies generally. For example, the National Trails System

Act of 1968 authorizes the appropriation of specific

amounts of money for development of certain trails (for

example, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, Appalachian

National Scenic Trail), while the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976 establishes a working capital

fund to be used for investments in the management of

public lands, including infrastructure investments. Likewise, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974 authorizes the installation of a transportation system to service the National Forest System,

and the Public Rangelands Improvements Act of 1978

authorizes investments in infrastructure that will improve

Federal rangelands (dams, roads, trails). Unfortunately,

there has been no comprehensive review of Federal legal

authority specifically for infrastructure investments in the

area of natural resources.

Data about Federal investments in public works are gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau as part of the agency’s

annual survey of State and local government finances

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). The definition of public

works infrastructure is very broad, and includes investment in highways, airports, sewerage, water supply, solid

waste facilities, mass transit, and water transport terminals, all of which have implications for forest sustainability. In 1995, Federal expenditures in these activities

totaled $12.8 billion of the $193.0 billion invested by

government (7 percent Federal, 29 percent State, 64 percent local), of which an estimated 39 percent was in the

form of capital expenditures. A dataset that focuses more

directly on Federal Government capital outlays in natural

resources shows that such expenditures totaled $3.3 billion

in 1995, $3.0 billion in 1994, $6.1 billion in 1993, $5.5

billion in 1992, $4.7 billion in 1990, $4.1 billion in 1985,

and $4.0 billion in 1980) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000b).

Information about USDA Forest Service investments in

infrastructure is similarly diffuse, although some is publicly available in reports of independent agencies (for

example, General Accounting Office 1991) and in the

agency’s annual reports. For example, in the National

Forest System in 1998, the agency was involved in the

construction of more than 200 miles of road and reconstruction of more than 2,700 miles of road, construction or

maintenance of more than 130,000 miles of trails, and

construction or reconstruction of six bridges (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1999). A recent but

significant change in road infrastructure within the National

Forest System has been the decommissioning of roads,

which has increased from about 1,500 miles per year in

1996 to about 2,800 miles per year in 1999 (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2000). For the years

1994 through 1998, the agency’s investments in the construction and maintenance of facilities, roads, and trails

were, in millions of dollars, as follows (U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service 1999):

Facility Road and Trail

Year Construction Maintenance Construction Maintenance

1994 94,437 26,476 130,896 79,180

1995 61,588 26,304 129,655 83,784

1996 46,029 23,008 115,359 81,019

1997 59,974 26,008 115,000 81,019

1998 47,919 24,244 114,951 84,974

Information about infrastructure investments in the National

Park System is periodically issued by independent government agencies (for example, General Accounting Office

1995). In addition, the USDI National Park Service

provides information on investments in improvements,

maintenance, and construction, although these may or may

not be related to forests and associated resources. For

selected years, these investments, in millions of dollars,

were as follows (U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service 2000):

Improvements and

Year maintenance Construction

1990 160.0 108.5

1991 179.6 134.1

1992 212.1 193.3

1993 224.8 226.8

1994 222.9 205.6

1995 234.0 192.0

1996 234.0 168.0

1997 246.0 188.0

The National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information

System (NORSIS) provides extensive information about

recreation infrastructure (Betz 1998, Betz and others 1999,

Cordell 1999). Compiled for the 1998 Renewable Resources

Planning Act Assessment of Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness, the system organizes information (primarily at the

county level) from an extensive variety of references and

databases (both public and private). The system presents


summary measures of outdoor recreation infrastructure in

terms of area (acres), miles (roads and trails), and number

of units (campgrounds), with the information organized by

major resource ownership categories (Federal, State, local,

and private) (table 5).

State Government Capacity

The capacity of State governments to gather, analyze, and

distribute information regarding infrastructure relevant to

the use, management, and protection of forests has not

been surveyed systematically or comprehensively. Little is

known about the legal and institutional capacity of State

governments to promote investments in infrastructure. Some

private organizations representing State governments at

the national level have gathered State expenditure information that has relevance to infrastructure generally, but

not to forest infrastructure specifically (for example, information about State general expenditures, and Federal

direct payments to States) (Council of State Governments

2000).

State capacity to affect various elements of forest infrastructure is also described by a 2000 analysis of State

government executive agencies influencing the use, management, and protection of forests. The analysis determined that nationwide in 2000 there were 47 Cabinet-level

entities (departments, agencies, commissions) engaged in

economic development and business promotion activities

involving investment in infrastructure important to forest

Table 5—Recreational infrastructure database sets for the National Outdoor Recreation Supply

Information System, by recreation provider (1998)

Federal agencies Local agencies

Estate agencies

Multiple-use agencies

USDA Forest Service

Bureau of Land Management

Resource protection and public use

National Park Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Other Federal land resources

Indian land

Department of Defense land

Water resource agencies

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Tennessee Valley Authority

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Specially designated Federal systems

National Wilderness Preservation System

National Recreation Areas

National Trails System

National Wild and Scenic Rivers

State agencies

State park systems in the United States

State park areas

State park facilities

Other State resource systems

State forests

State wilderness

State fish and wildlife land

State trust lands

State scenic rivers

Source: Adapted from Betz (1998).

Municipal recreation and parks

County recreation and parks

Special park districts

Local recreation facilities and sites

Urban agencies

Greenways

Rails-to-trails

Land trusts

Tourism development

Private sector

Recreation land

Nature Conservancy

Industrial timber lands

Private recreation businesses

Campgrounds

Downhill and cross-country skiing

Outfitters and guides

Farm-ranch vacations

Amusements and attractions

Golf and tennis facilities

Vacation homes and resorts

Public-private partnerships

Scenic byways

Watchable wildlife


conditions. Forty-six sub-Cabinet (first-tier) entities were

engaged in similar matters. Nineteen governing or advisory bodies to Executive agencies also had influence over

infrastructure matters related to economic development.

Also at the department level were six State entities involved

in the development of transportation and communication

infrastructure (Ellefson and others 2001 and 2002).

Information about State and local investments in public

works is gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau as part of the

agency’s annual survey of State and local government

finances (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). In 1995, State

expenditures for public works totaled $56.4 billion of the

$193.0 billion invested by governments (7 percent Federal,

29 percent State, 64 percent local). State and local government capital outlays in the area of natural resources were

$2.9 billion in 1996, $3.0 billion in 1994, $6.1 billion in

1993, $5.5 billion in 1992, $4.7 billion in 1990, $4.1 billion

in 1985, and $4.0 billion in 1980. Capital outlays in the

area of parks and recreation were $4.9 billion in 1996,

$4.1 billion in 1995, $3.9 billion in 1994, $3.8 billion in

1993, $3.9 billion in 1992, $3.9 billion in 1990, $2.2

billion in 1985, and $2.0 billion in 1980 (U.S. Census

Bureau 2000b).

Local Government Capacity

Information about local government expenditures for construction and maintenance of infrastructure directly relevant

to forests and forest uses has not been gathered or assessed.

However, data about local investments in public works are

gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau

2000a). In 1995, local expenditures on these activities

totaled $123.7 billion of the $193.0 billion invested by

government (7 percent Federal, 29 percent State, 64

percent local).

Infrastructure in forested counties in Michigan, Minnesota,

and Wisconsin was assessed in 1993 using U.S. Census

Bureau county government finance and related reports

(Lewis and others 1993). The focus was on 1986 capital

outlays by all levels of government (local, State, Federal)

in counties that did not have large urban centers (populations exceeding 25,000) and whose land area was at least

25 percent forested. Forty-five percent of the counties in

the three States had these characteristics. Of the total

capital outlay for infrastructure in 1986, the largest portion

was directed to education services (57 percent in Michigan,

39 percent in Minnesota, 44 percent in Wisconsin), with

core infrastructure a distant second in level of capital outlay (table 6). Capital investment in environmental infrastructure did not exceed 3 percent of total capital outlays

in any of the States analyzed.

Summary of Conditions

An effective level of infrastructure is important to accomplishing a diversity of societal interests in the sustainability

Table 6—State and local government capital outlays for infrastructure in forested

counties of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, by infrastructure category (1986)

Major infrastructure category Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin

 - - - - - - percent of capital outlays - - - - - -

Core infrastructure (transportation, utilities, 15 22 26

sewerage, and sanitation)

Education services (schools and libraries) 57 39 44

Environment (parks, recreation, natural 1 2 3

resources)

Social services (hospitals and health care) 9 4 5

Public safety (police and fire protection) 3 3 5

Housing and community development * 10 1

Other capital outlays 15 29 16

Total percent 100 100 100

Total dollars (in thousands) $2,384,381 $895,978 $1,940,672

Note: Capital expenditures represent all capital expenditures by all levels of government in a county. Less than one

percent indicated by asterisk.

Source: Lewis and others (1993).


of forests and the communities that depend on them. This

review of infrastructure capacity at Federal, State, and

local levels of government suggests the following:

• Infrastructure is often presumed to exist as a set of

conditions facilitating the management of forests, use of

benefits provided by forests, and quality of life of

communities that see forests as a community attribute.

Infrastructure is often taken for granted. In fact, it is a

foundation that must be invested in, built, managed, and

maintained.

• Infrastructure occurs as a result of investment in various

desirable facilities. This includes investments associated

with forest resource conditions (forest roads and trails,

recreational facilities), processing and manufacturing

facilities (particle board mills, pulp and paper mills),

and community-supporting facilities (schools, highways,

sewage treatment facilities). Determining acceptable

levels of investment in public infrastructure is difficult

because of the often differing preferences of forest

users. For example, different forest users have different

views about the desirability of forest road systems.

• Legal authority and institutional capacity to build infrastructure important to forest and community sustainability is distributed among and within many levels of

government. In reality, nearly all forest resource agencies exercise some capacity to influence infrastructure,

although very few government agencies have explicit

responsibility for infrastructure conditions. The greatest

responsibility for promoting infrastructure investments

lies with economic development agencies, pollution

control agencies, and some resource management

agencies.

• Concern about forest-related infrastructure tends to focus

on physical facilities associated with the extraction,

processing, and distribution of wood and wood products

(for example, forest roads, manufacturing mills, highway systems). In terms of visibility, investment levels,

and available information, less concern appears to be

focused on the infrastructure necessary to provide other

forest benefits (for example, recreation, water, range).

• Infrastructure investments by the private sector are

primarily the result of access to privately raised capital,

which is often complemented by government-provided

finances and technical advice. Private-sector investments

tend to focus on processing infrastructure while the

government focuses on infrastructure requirements of

the community as a whole (highways, schools, communication systems).

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues and

trends that relate to infrastructure capacity as it affects

forest sustainability and conservation. Examples of this

literature (from which the following issues and trends are

drawn) are: Aschauer 1991a, 1991b; Fox 1987; General

Accounting Office 1992; Lewis and others 1993; Munnel

1990; Sears and others 1990; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 1997, 2000, 2003; Vaughn 1983.

• The relevance of traditional definitions and concepts of

infrastructure to forest sustainability is increasingly

being challenged. The concept of infrastructure as

physical structures such as roads, buildings, processing

facilities, and communication systems is being enlarged

to include green infrastructure (ecosystems filtering

pollutants and providing aesthetic, recreational, and

spiritual qualities); facilities that disperse, transform, or

store by-products of economic activities (facilities for

storage of toxic materials); and facilities that focus on

objectives not previously considered (such as campgrounds, ski lifts, recreational trails).

• There is increasing recognition that the benefits provided

by infrastructure are very diffuse, and that it is therefore

extremely difficult to determine market values for many

current or proposed public investments in infrastructure.

Furthermore, the benefits from public investments in

infrastructure are often only loosely connected to the

prices users pay for them. In some cases, users pay no

clearly identifiable fee for the use of certain infrastructure. For example, hunters and recreationists usually

pay no explicit fee for use of public forest roads and

trails. The results of these conditions are frequently

significant distortions in important economic relationships and subsequent investment decisions.

• There is increasing skepticism that public investments

in forest and related infrastructure are promoting economic development and private-sector productivity. This

skepticism gives rise to serious questions about the roles

of government and the private sector in fostering infrastructure investments necessary for certain forest uses

and management activities.

• Specifying appropriate levels of public investment in

infrastructure is increasingly being viewed as a major

challenge. This is largely because such determinations

are often made without benefit of a market system that

establishes appropriate levels of pricing in a forest sustainability context. A private firm can compare revenues

with costs and adjust output capacity to the point at

which marginal cost equals marginal revenue, but the

production of forest infrastructure by government is

seldom subject to these market mechanisms.

• The task of determining appropriate types and levels of

investment in infrastructure is being made more difficult

by intense political debates over the use, management,

and protection of forests. For example, there is strong

disagreement about the extent to which roads should be

built and maintained in public forests, and about the


extent to which economic development (often in the

form of wood processing facilities) should be allowed to

occur in forested areas. This problem is of special concern for public lands, for which there are often multiple,

shifting, and contradictory objectives for forest sustainability.

• Expected demographic changes are likely to have a

significant impact on the type and intensity of forest

infrastructure required in the future. Preferences for

some forest uses (for example, preferences for certain

recreational activities) may change dramatically as

population structure changes or as population density

declines in some forested regions and increases in

others.

• Maintenance of existing infrastructure continues to be a

concern for both public and private sectors. For the

public sector, backlogs in the maintenance of roads,

trails, bridges, and dams are well documented. Compounding the problem is the need to decommission

roads on some public forests. In the private sector, aging

processing facilities and the advent of new technologies

are placing greater stress on private sources of capital

for needed improvements in infrastructure.

• Permanent infrastructure installations are increasingly

viewed as deterrents to the production of certain forest

benefits. Sentiment for minimal, if any, permanent

physical infrastructure is increasing in some segments

of society that find forest benefits diminished by the

presence of permanent structures (such as roads, buildings, communication structures). This problem reflects

broader contradictions in infrastructure requirements

associated with multiple needs.

Information Adequacy

Specification

The diversity in form and function of infrastructure raises

many questions about the information required to adequately

assess the infrastructure conditions considered necessary

to forest sustainability and conservation. A number of

information concerns must be addressed. For example,

there is a pressing need for information about the status

and condition of infrastructure (magnitude and extent of

current and planned capital outlays in infrastructure), need

for investment in new or existing infrastructure (identification of desired objectives and assessment of infrastructure

investments needed to accomplish them), processes by

which infrastructure is provided (determinations of adequacy, assessment of investment needs, identification of

financial sources, designation of responsibility for implementation), effectiveness and efficiency of infrastructure

investments (relationship between desired conditions of

forest sustainability and required type and level of infrastructure), knowledge and information networks (communication and information flow between users and providers

of infrastructure), regional and national influences on

infrastructure (in contrast to local conditions, influence of

broader geographic forest conditions, population structure,

type and mix of industries, financial capital, research and

education resources), and regional and international

comparisons (determination of infrastructure deficiencies,

focusing of public and private investments, use of learning

experiences to increase program efficiency) (Lewis and

others 1993).

Information about infrastructure considered important to

forest sustainability and conservation has received very

limited attention from public and private organizations.

Notable providers are Federal agencies (for example, U.S.

Census Bureau), most of which focus on the infrastructure

required for industrial production (including wood-based

production). The National Association of State Foresters

has surveyed State forestry agency information concerning

infrastructure. The association reported that only 14 States

had access to such information. Of the 14 States with

information, 3 indicated that they had abundant information, 7 that they had sufficient information, and 4 that they

had some, but generally very little, information. Two States

reported that the quality of their information was excellent,

11 that it was adequate, and 2 that it was poor (National

Association of State Foresters 1999).

The following kinds of information might be useful in clarifying the capacity of institutions to provide the infrastructure required for forest sustainability and conservation:

• Measurement information—Information about which

variables are important and how they should be measured to accurately portray conditions involving forest

infrastructure has not been assembled. What indicators

should be measured and compiled (for example, road

density per unit area, roads per capita)? What infrastructure indicators are most appropriate for various standards

of sustainable forest management (for example, campgrounds, trails, educational facilities, timber management)? How often should these indicators be measured?

Are special indicators and measurement needs associated with different types of infrastructure, or with public

versus private infrastructure? What is an appropriate

indicator of necessary infrastructure (for example, what

are appropriate standards for roads and processing

facilities)?

• Extent of activity information—Information about infrastructure is often scattered unevenly among public and

private collecting organizations, and lacks local,

regional, and national consistency. What are the legal

requirements for investing in infrastructure at various


geographic levels and by various organizations? How

are these requirements changing over time? Are there

different requirements at different levels of government?

Is there consistency among these requirements? What is

the status of local efforts to encourage infrastructure

development? What is the condition of private infrastructure and the extent of private investment in such

infrastructure? How does current infrastructure relate to

public and private forest plans? What portion of infrastructure is being managed to some agreed-upon standard? Are compilations of data, as currently carried out,

useful for guiding policy and program direction?

• Responsible organization information—Comprehensive

information about what private and public organizations

are actively engaged in the development and maintenance of forest and related infrastructure has not been

assembled. What government agencies, and at what

levels, are engaged in infrastructure development and

maintenance (for example, USDA Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Transportation, U.S. Geological Survey,

State and local governments)? What legal authority

assigns them responsibility, and is such authority being

interpreted accurately? Should certain levels of government be responsible for providing infrastructure for

certain categories of forest landowners? Do public and

private organizations that engage in infrastructure development have similar or differing goals and objectives,

and do these objectives foster or hinder needed investment in infrastructure? Are there organizational patterns

in the public and private sector that, if known and publicized, would enhance overall investment in infrastructure?

• Coordination information—Information about requirements for coordinating the development and maintenance of infrastructure among and between various levels

of government and various private concerns has not

been assembled. What conflicts exist among the various

entities engaged in developing and maintaining forest

infrastructure? How might they be resolved productively? What are requirements for coordination? Do

they allow for cross-sectoral, coordinated planning and

review (for example, in the construction of road systems

involving multiple forest ownerships)? Do they ensure

that the cumulative results of local, State, and regionally

developed infrastructure will lead to outcomes consistent with national requirements and vice versa? Do they

allow incorporation of ad hoc code development activities occurring at various times and undertaken by various levels of government?

• Scope of infrastructure information—Comprehensive

information about forest infrastructure in addition to

that required for wood production and processing has

not been assembled. What infrastructure has been developed for the range of values associated with forests?

What approaches have been used to encourage the

development of such infrastructure? What laws require

the development of infrastructure for the broad range of

values associated with forests? Do these legal requirements differ among agencies at the same level of government and among different levels of government? Are

these differences complementary or competitive? Are

there barriers to the development of infrastructure that

is not focused on wood production and processing? If

so, how might they be overcome?

• Investment and incentive information—Comprehensive

information about resources devoted to infrastructure

development and maintenance has not been assembled.

What is the magnitude of investment in public and private

infrastructure? Is there an appropriate level of investment

in new infrastructure, possibly as a percentage of existing infrastructure? Are there legal and administrative

processes for allocating resources to infrastructure development and maintenance, and are they sufficient? Are

there legal or fiscal provisions for encouraging infrastructure development, and especially for encouraging

cross-sectoral development and maintenance activities?

• Effectiveness information—Comprehensive information

about the effectiveness of various types and levels of

infrastructure in supporting sustainable forestry interests

has not been compiled. Are there legal or administrative

requirements to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure development? What are appropriate measures of success? Are there more effective

approaches to infrastructure development and maintenance than those currently in use?

• Monitoring information—Limited monitoring of the

condition of forest infrastructure and levels of investment therein has been conducted, often by Federal

agencies. However, more intensive monitoring could be

useful. Are there legal requirements to monitor the

condition of forest infrastructure? Is the information

obtained by means of monitoring being used to adapt

infrastructure investments to changing circumstances? Is

the information being collected and analyzed in ways

that enable agencies to fulfill their legal responsibilities? Are the results of monitoring efforts capable of

being accumulated to portray conditions at the landscape, regional, and national levels?

Recommendations

The ability to achieve forest sustainability will depend

very largely on consistent, long-term investments in appropriate types of infrastructure. In order to improve understanding of the legal and institutional setting within which

such investment will occur, a variety of information voids

must be addressed. We recommend that the following

actions be taken:
	

• Comprehensive periodic reviews—Conduct periodic and

comprehensive reviews of current authorities and institutions that give direction and resources to the physical

infrastructure considered necessary for forest sustainability. These reviews should be guided by the information deficiencies suggested above. Special attention

should be given to the collection of information about

the type and extent of infrastructure, the organizations

responsible for ensuring appropriate levels of infrastructure, and the long-term appropriateness and effectiveness of forest infrastructure. This information should

reflect conditions at Federal, State, and local levels of

government. In addition, a systematic review of privatesector capability to create and maintain appropriate

infrastructure should be initiated.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews—Assign responsibility for continuous reviews of forest infrastructure to a

specific existing or new administrative unit of a Federal

agency (for example, the USDA Forest Service’s State

and Private Forestry unit or Research and Development

unit), a college or university, or other nonprofit organization (for example, the National Association of State

Foresters or the National Council of the Paper Industry

for Air and Stream Improvement). This responsibility

should be assigned to an organization that has a record

of success in addressing the complexities of forest

infrastructure.

• Devote resources to reviews—Invest in the review sufficient resources to provide the type and quantity of information necessary to dramatically improve understanding

of current abilities to plan, construct, and maintain

forest infrastructure that is important to sustainable

forestry.

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

The activities specified by Indicator 56 are not defined

clearly. The phrases “physical infrastructure,” “facilitate

supply of forest products and services,” and “support for

forest management” must be explained if information

gathering is to proceed in an orderly way. The problem of

definition is further complicated by the use of old terms

(such as “public works”) and new terms (such as “green

infrastructure”) that reflect different perceptions of

infrastructure.

The scope of the subject matter addressed by Indicator 56

is also of concern. Physical infrastructure can consist of

least four basic elements, namely forest ecosystems as

infrastructure, forestland base infrastructure (such as roads,

recreation facilities), forest product processing infrastructure (such as manufacturing facilities), and broad forest

community infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals).

Although these distinctions are not mutually exclusive,

they will regulate information gathering for this indicator.

The Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry has suggested that

Indicator 56 be interpreted as applying only to implementation of forest plans and capital investments in the management and protection of the forestland base (for

example, forest roads and recreational facilities). While

germane, larger-scale infrastructure systems (for example,

mills, production facilities, public and freight transportation systems, energy infrastructure, water infrastructure,

financial systems, banking systems) are beyond the scope

of this indicator. Such an approach would make the information-gathering task much easier. However, to limit

interpretation of the indicator in such a way would severely

constrain efforts to appreciate and understand the importance of infrastructure (in its broadest sense) to forest

sustainability and conservation.

Infrastructure scope and definition problems will continue

to be troublesome. However, we recommend that the

indicator be reworded to refer to institutional capacity to

“Develop and maintain physical infrastructure necessary

to manage and protect forests and to make available the

range of goods and services that forests are capable of

providing.”

Relationship to Other Indicators

Indicator 56 overlaps with several others, particularly as

they relate to concepts involving development and implementation of forest management plans. There is potential

for difficulty in this respect in Indicator 56’s relationship

to Indicators 10 (area of forestland), 35 (area of recreational forestland), 36 (facilities available for recreation

and tourism), 38 (investment in forests and product processing), 42 (forestland spiritual values), 46 (changing

economic conditions), 49 (planning and assessment), and

54 (planning and coordination).

Literature Cited

American Forest and Paper Association. 2000. Paper, paperboard and

wood pulp statistics: 2001. Washington, DC: American Forest and

Paper Association. 93 p.

Aschauer, D.A. 1991a. Infrastructure: America’s third deficit. Challenge.

34(2): 39-45.

Aschauer, D.A. 1991b. The third deficit. GAO Journal. Spring: 4-8.

Betz, C.J. 1998. Outdoor recreation supply in the United States: a description of the resources, data, and other information sources. Asheville,

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research

Station. [Not paged].

Betz, C.J.; English, D.B.K.; Cordell, H.K. 1999. Outdoor recreation

resources. In: Cordell, H.K.; McKinney, S.M., ed. Outdoor recreation in

American life. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 39-182.



Cordell, H.K. 1999. Framework for assessment of demand and supply

trends in outdoor recreation. In: Cordell, H.K.; McKinney, S.M., eds.

Outdoor recreation in American life. Champaign, IL: Sagamore

Publishing: 31-38.

Council of State Governments. 2000. The book of States: 2000-2001.

Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments. 551 p. Vol. 33.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: an

assessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape of

State government. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department

of Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of State

agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry. 100(6):35-42.

Fox, William F. 1987. Public infrastructure and economic development.

In: Rural economic development in the 1980’s: preparing for the future.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service, Division of Agriculture and Rural Economy: 13-1 to 13-23.

General Accounting Office. 1991. Forest Service: difficult choices face

future of the recreation program. GAO/RCED-91-115. Washington,

DC: General Accounting Office. 34 p.

General Accounting Office. 1992. Rural development: rural America

faces many challenges. GAO/RCED-93-35. Washington, DC: General

Accounting Office. 124 p.

General Accounting Office. 1995. National parks: difficult choices need

to be made about the future of the parks. GAO/RCED-95-238.

Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. 52 p.

Lewis, B.J.; Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J. 1993. Public infrastructure and

rural development in forested areas of the Lake States: a review and

assessment of information needs. Staff Paper Series 90. St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 137 p.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and

indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2000].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Munnel, A.H. 1990. How does public infrastructure affect regional

economic performance? New England Economic Review. Sept.-Oct.:

11-32.

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation

assessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date

accessed: December 2001].

Presidential Executive Order. 1994. Principles for Federal infrastructure

investments. Executive Order 12893 of January 26, 1994. Federal

Register 59(20). 3 p.

Sears, D.W.; Rowley, T.D.; Reid, J.N. 1990. Infrastructure investment and

economic development: an overview. In: Infrastructure investment and

economic development. AGES 9069. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Division of Agriculture

and Rural Economy: 1-18.

Teasley, D.W.; Bergstroom, J.C.; Cordell, H.K. [and others]. 1999. Private

lands and outdoor recreation in the United States. In: Cordell, H.K.;

McKinney, S.M., eds. Outdoor recreation in American life. Champaign,

IL: Sagamore Publishing: 183-218.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Annual survey of State and local government

finances, Department of Commerce. http://www.census.gov/govs/

www/estimate97.html. [Date accessed: December 2001].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Statistical abstract of the United States.

Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.

1,005 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001a. General summary 1997: economic census,

manufacturing (Subject series). EC97M31S-GS. Department of

Commerce. http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/ec97stat.htm. [Date

accessed: December 2001].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001b. Annual capital expenditures: 1999. ACE/99.

Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 16 p.

+ appendices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990. Infrastructure investment and economic development. AGES 9069. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Division of Agriculture and

Rural Economy. [Not paged].

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1997. First approximation

report for sustainable forest management: report of the United States

on the criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of

temperate and boreal forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service. 220 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1999. Report of the Forest

Service: Fiscal Year 1999. http://www.fs.fed.us/pl/pdb/98report/. [Date

accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service roadless area conservation. Final environmental impact statement. http://

roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2003. Sustainability

assessment highlights for the northern United States. NA-TP-05-03.

Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast

Area State and Private Forestry. 99 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2000. National

Park Service statistical abstract: 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 52 p.

Vaughn, R.J. 1983. Financing public works in the 1980s. In: Barker, M.,

ed. Rebuilding America’s infrastructure: an agenda for the 1980s.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press: 108-120.


The full text of Indicator 57 is as follows: Extent to which

the institutional framework supports the conservation and

sustainable management of forests, including the capacity

to enforce laws, regulations, and guidelines (Montreal

Process Working Group 2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

The achievement of conditions conducive to forest conservation and sustainability implies that various biophysical

standards (for example, forestry best management practices)

and assorted political processes (for example, collaborative

processes, legislative processes) have been appropriately

engaged and applied. In many cases, this will occur in

response to market systems or to various participatory

processes involving different segments of the public. However, there may be circumstances in which sustainability

standards are applied only in response to the fear of

penalty or punishment. Some unwilling persons or entities

respond only to the imposition of a sanction in the form of

an order, fine, or incarceration. Without adequately and

appropriately applied enforcement efforts, the effectiveness

of laws, regulations, and guidelines focused on forest

resources may be substantially diminished in some

circumstances (Montreal Process Technical Advisory

Committee 2000, Montreal Process Working Group 2003).

Useful data for measuring institutional capacity to accomplish this indicator are compilations and descriptions of

laws and programs at national and subnational levels that

enforce conditions considered essential to forest sustainability (for example, legally authorized penalties and jail

sentences, number of personnel employed in enforcement

roles, administrative and judicial review capabilities, and

number and type of programs, databases, and clearinghouses established to monitor violations). The laws that

require enforcement actions relevant to sustaining forest

conditions are far-ranging. They address, for example,

conditions of the environment (air, water, pesticides,

hazardous waste), fisheries and wildlife (harvest limits,

species preservation, subsistence hunting), timber harvesting (road construction, harvest limits, health and safety),

and special features protection (sensitive or fragile areas

containing unique environmental attributes or resources).

In addition, many laws promote sustainability by means

less harsh than those commonly thought of as enforcement

actions, namely education, technical assistance, fiscal

incentives, and tax incentives. In a broader sense, the latter

programs may also be considered enforcement mechanisms

even though their appeal is directed to the self-interest of

landowners and timber harvesters (Montreal Process

Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

Indicator 57 refers to concepts and principles that should

be defined. Enforcement refers to actions taken to compel

conformity with desired conditions or implementation of

favored programs. Examples of enforcement actions include

inspections, investigations, and imposition of fines. Laws

are legislatively binding and authoritatively prescribed

standards that must be adhered to. Examples include air

and water quality laws. Regulations are operational procedures that govern the actions of persons or organizations.

They are interpreted and enforced by public agencies, and

include, for example, rules promulgated in response to

State forest practice laws. Guidelines are criteria, touchstones, or benchmarks such as recommended best management practices. Guidelines may be incorrectly specified by

the indicator, in that guidelines in the United States are

generally viewed as standards to be voluntarily complied

with by landowners and timber harvesters, often in response

to offers of fiscal and technical assistance. Moreover,

“enforcement” is widely associated with laws and regulations that make certain actions mandatory, whereas

“incentives” is typically associated with guidelines.

Conceptual Background

Enforcement of favored conditions that will accomplish

societal interests in the sustainability of forests requires a

delicate balancing of public and private interests in forests.

In the context of the enforcement of laws and rules, this

balance is achieved when nearly everyone expects certain

standards of sustainability to be applied whether they

agree with the standards or not, and this expectation deters

the contrary actions of those who do not wish to comply.

In guideline enforcement, a balance occurs when landowners and timber harvesters respond to various forms of

incentives by voluntarily following procedures and applying practices that also lead to conditions of sustainability.

The balance between public and private interests in forests

is fragile. So too is the political balance between laws and

rules obeyed out of fear, and guidelines followed in response

to persuasive tactics that appeal to the ethics of forest

stewardship and ultimately to sustainable forestry. There

have been many rancorous political battles between those

1 Ellefson, Professor, and Hibbard, Research Specialist, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Enforcement of Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines (Indicator 57)

Paul V. Ellefson and Calder M. Hibbard1


who have attempted to define the appropriate balance

between the two (Callicott 2000, Ellefson 2000).

Enforcement of laws, rules, and guidelines can take many

forms. If the emphasis is on persuasive actions focused on

guidelines, the forest resources community has access to

an enormous array of programs that represent Federal and

State capacity to promote sustainability. Such programs

range from educational and technical assistance programs

to fiscal and tax incentives, and from payment for use and

development rights to legally binding arrangements for

transferring property between owners. As for enforcement

of actions by threat of punishment, the range of tools is

equally wide. Penalties (for example, fines and incarceration) exist for violation of endangered-species laws and

failure to comply with regulatory rules being implemented

by State air and water quality agencies. For example, in

Arkansas it is unlawful to remove any trees growing below

the normal high-water mark on any river or stream, and

violation of this law is punishable by a fine to be not more

than $1,000 (Environmental Law Institute 1998). Yet, in

other States (for example, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, and

Wisconsin), forestry laws require the withholding of a tax

benefit (or recapture of taxes avoided) if agreed-to forest

management plans are violated, or laws may condition

receipt of cost-share monies on a landowner’s willingness

to apply certain forestry practices. On Federal public lands,

enforcement by means of threats of penalties is authorized

by a variety of laws, regulations, and administrative directives. Penalties may be imposed for violations involving

timber harvest trespass, endangered species habitat destruction, and failure to maintain safe and healthy working

conditions. In some situations, Federal agency administrative withdrawal of access to unique resources located on

public lands is also viewed as an enforcement action.

The complex jurisdictional conditions that surround the

enforcement of laws and regulations and the promotion of

guidelines can be especially challenging to those who

attempt to map patterns of enforcement. Some resource

conditions are a Federal responsibility (for example, wildlife habitat management on Federal lands) and some are a

State responsibility (for example, State determination of

harvest levels on Federal lands), while in other cases (for

example, endangered species) responsibility rests primarily

with the Federal Government. In yet other situations,

Federal and State enforcement jurisdictions operate cooperatively on enforcement matters (educational and fiscal

incentives, health and safety standards), while in others

(for example, air quality standards, pesticide use standards)

the Federal Government may again be the preeminent

authority. Local units of government also have significant

enforcement authority, especially in matters of land use

(for example, zoning and subdivision of property).

The task of describing enforcement activities and programs

is also made difficult by issues involving definitions. What

constitutes a violation and what is an appropriate attendant

penalty? Enforcing agencies seek clarity in both, as do

violators of the law, yet both prefer some latitude in the

definition of an offense and the nature of the sanctions to

be imposed. Room for bargaining and negotiation may

benefit both sides. In reality, however, statutory language

may at times be so broad that confusion ensues and agencies have to seek direction from rule-making processes or

the opinions of courts. Statutory phrases like “prohibit

waste disposal,” “forbid discharge of a pollutant,” or

“enjoin pollutants from nonpoint sources” can perplex

enforcement. At the other extreme, the standards or thresholds of conduct stipulated in law may be so explicit that

enforcing agencies have difficulty applying the standards

to geographically diverse forest conditions or to the diversity of honorable intentions of landowners and timber

harvesters. Forest practice regulatory rules are sometimes

particularly explicit in specifying standards (for example,

harvest operations cannot commence without an on-site

inspection, trees over 24 inches in diameter cannot be

harvested, riparian buffer strips must be 150 feet in width

and pesticides will not be applied therein).

Current Insitutional Capacity

Federal Government Capacity

Authorities and programs—Federal agencies have substantial authority and institutional capacity to enforce

laws, regulations, and guidelines that contain standards

important to the sustainability of forests and related

resources. For example, in administering the National

Forest System “all persons employed in the Forest Service

of the United States shall have authority to make arrests

for the violation of the laws and regulations relating to the

national forests” (Public Law 58-138; Agricultural Appropriations Act of March 3, 1905). In furtherance of this

authority, the agency is also authorized to cooperate with

any State or political subdivision thereof in the enforcement

of laws involving national forests (Cooperative Law

Enforcement Act of 1971). Similarly, the USDI Bureau of

Land Management is authorized to “institute a civil action

for an injunction to prevent any person from utilizing public lands in violation of regulations” (Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976). The agency has the authority to develop regulations for public land use, management,

and protection; to initiate civil actions for violation of

regulations, including nature of relief expected; to enter

into contracts with law enforcement officials as necessary

to enforce regulations; and to cooperate with regulatory

and law enforcement officials of any State or political

subdivision thereof. Similar authorities are granted to

other Federal agencies (for example, the USDI National


Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforce

the laws and regulations for which they are responsible)

(West Publishing Company 1997). Although extensive

enforcement authority does exist, there is only a limited

understanding of how such authorities are interrelated and

of the extent to which cooperation in enforcement matters

actually occurs (American Forest and Paper Association

1994).

Enforcement authorities of Federal agencies can be exercised in a wide variety of ways. However, the most commonly referred-to approach to the enforcement of forest

sustainability standards is by exercising authority to

inspect, investigate, and impose fines and prison sentences.

The mere existence of authority to impose fines or seek

court-imposed prison terms can significantly influence

behavior regarding the adoption of forest sustainability

standards. Information about such authorities and their

application is modest. Two of 7 Federal statutes focused

directly and exclusively on forests grant authorities to

impose fines, while 11 of 20 Federal laws that are more

broadly focused on the environment and natural resources

authorize fines and court-imposed prison sentences for

noncompliance with statutory provisions (table 1). Most

Table 1—Enforcement actions authorized by selected Federal statutes relevant to forest resources,

by statute and type of action (2001)

Type of action authorized to compel action or enforcement

Specifies Specifies Authorizes Authorizes

fines and Authorizes standards, funds education &

prison development action, or required to incentives

sentences to of rules to process to compel to compel

Federal statute be imposed be followed be followed action action

Focus directly and exclusively on forests and forestry

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 X X

Forest Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990 X X X X

(timber exports)

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning X X

Act of 1974

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960

National Forest Management Act of 1978 X

National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986 X

Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 X X X

Focus broad, but including forests and forestry

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 X X

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 X X X

Clean Air Act of 1990 X X X X X

Clean Water Act of 1987 X X X X X

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 X X X X

Endangered Species Act of 1973 X X X X X

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act X X X X

(as amended 1996)

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 X X X X

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 X X X X

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 X

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 X X X

National Trails System Act of 1968 X X

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration X X X X

Act of 1966 (1997)

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 X X X X X

Public Lands U.S. Criminal Code of 1948 X X

Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 X X

Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1986 X X X X X

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 X X

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 X X

Wilderness Act of 1964 X

Sources: Coggins and others (2001); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1993); West Publishing Company (1997).


statutorily authorized fines and imprisonment relate to fish

and wildlife statutes, although archeological resources,

human health and safety, and pesticide use and management are often the focus of enforcement (table 2).

Agency-promulgated rules and regulations are also enforcement tools, in that they establish standards of conduct that

command respect and influence behavior (Kerwin 1999).

Influencing both the substance of sustainable forestry and

the processes by which sustainable forestry is accomplished,

rules and regulations are extremely common enforcement

mechanisms among Federal natural resource agencies.

Especially notable in this respect have been rules and rulemaking efforts related to the implementation of the National

Forest Management Act of 1976, Endangered Species Act

of 1973, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 1976. During the 5-year period beginning in 1997,

4 Federal agencies issued nearly 400 final rules for guiding

the actions of other Federal agencies and the public (table

3). Rules issued by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

accounted for the vast majority of these final rules (most

of which were required to implement the Endangered

Species Act of 1973). Similar in many respects to rules,

Presidential Executive orders also serve as enforcement

mechanisms in that they command respect and ultimately

coerce compliance with desired policy and program

directions (Appendix A).

Enforcement can also be exercised in a number of other

ways. Unfortunately, information describing this Federal

institutional capacity is usually scattered, inconsistent, and

in many cases nonexistent. For example, few if any compilations or analyses have been made of enforcement actions

involving injunctive relief imposed by Federal courts in

response to civil violations identified by Federal agencies.

At best, there have been modest efforts to determine the

frequency and disposition of Federal cases generally

involving environmental and natural resource statutes

(Alden and Ellefson 1997, Jones and Taylor 1995, Wasby

1983) (table 4). Similarly, there has been but modest attention paid to: (1) agency administrative withdrawal of certain Federal public lands as a means of protecting them

from deleterious uses and management practices (U.S.

General Accounting Office 1995); (2) agency review of

permits granted by authority of environmental and natural

resource statutes (for example, permits for timber harvesting, mineral extraction, and access to private property); (3)

actual or threatened suspension of financial payments if

compliance with plans, management directives, or sustainability standards are not met (for example, failure of State

governments to adhere to certain provisions of the Coastal

Zone Management Act of 1972) (West Publishing Company

1997); (4) agency acquisition (primarily from nonprofit

organizations) of certain private lands or resources considered to be in jeopardy (U.S. General Accounting Office

1994); and (5) enforcement of public interest in forest

sustainability by moral persuasion that is promoted through

an assortment of fiscal and tax incentives and the extending of information and technical assistance. Federal statutory capacity for this persuasive approach is extensive

(table 5).

Enforcement magnitude—Comprehensive information

describing the extent of Federal agency capacity for

enforcement has not been assembled. The following

examples describing Federal agency enforcement efforts

must suffice, although much of the information does not

relate exclusively to forestry and forest-resource matters.

The USDI Bureau of Land Management (responsible for

264 million acres of Federal public land) implements a

law enforcement program involving approximately 200

law enforcement officers who patrol areas as large as 1.8

million acres. Enforcement activities focus on a wide

array of illegal activities involving timber, oil, and gas

trespass; mineral theft and fraud; cultural resource vandalism and theft; unlawful land occupancy; recreational site

violations; illegal hazardous waste dumping; wrongful use

of off-road vehicles; and drug-related offenses. Enforcement is especially critical for formally designated special

places on Federal public lands, and more than 3,000 of

these have been identified. The agency’s 1998 budget

request for resource protection and law enforcement was

nearly $16 million. In 1996, enforcement actions involved

an estimated 7,200 felonies and misdemeanors and 4,700

natural-resource violations (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001).

The USDI National Park Service is responsible for 84

million acres of Federal public land. More than 288 million

persons visited these lands in 2001. In fiscal year (FY)

2001, the Park Service spent more that $196 million on

law enforcement, of which $140 million was invested in

enforcement related to resource protection (vandalism,

archeological safeguards) and ranger law enforcement

(search and rescue, vehicle violations). Since 1996, the

agency has spent about twice as much on enforcement that

is related to resource protection as it has spent on ranger

law enforcement. In FY 2001, the actual law enforcement

and protection workload was as follows: law enforcement

incidents, 85,300; natural resource incidents (violations),

18,800; search and rescue incidents, 4,200; emergency

medical incidents, 13,700; archeological protection

incidents, 320; vandalism incidents, 3,300; and resource

incidents, 19,800. The agency’s enforcement activities are

facilitated by the use of a computer-based clearinghouse

of information on archeological looting and vandalism

(called LOOT or Listing of Outlaw Treachery). Between

1985 and 1987, 1,620 incidents involving archeological

resources were reported by Federal agencies, leading to


Table 2—Penalties and punishment authorized by Federal statutes relevant to forest resources (2001)

Federal statute Penalties for violations and provision for related enforcement

Preservation of American Antiquities Persons appropriating any object of antiquity on Federal Government lands

Act of 1906 subject to penalties of up to $500 or up to 90 days (or both).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 Persons failing to comply with regulations regarding taking, killing, or

possessing migratory birds subject to penalties up to $500 or imprisonment up

to 6 months (or both) ($2,000 or 2 years [or both] for sale of birds).

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Persons possessing or selling eagles subject to penalties of up to $5,000 or

Act of 1940 imprisonment up to 1 year (or both) (second violation: $10,000 and 2 years).

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Persons failing to properly register or use pesticides subject to various penalties

Rodenticide Act (as amended) ranging from maximums of $1,000 to $25,000 and from maximums of 30 days

to 3 years imprisonment.

Public Lands U.S. Criminal Code Persons engaged (on Federal public lands) in timber trespass, tree injury, setting

of 1948 of wildfires, destruction of livestock fences, destruction of survey markers, or

deception at land and timber sales subject to various penalties ranging from

maximums of $500 to $3,000 and from maximums of 6 months to 3 years

imprisonment.

Occupational Safety and Health Act Persons violating safety and health rules subject to civil and criminal penalties

of 1970 ranging from maximum of $7,000 to $70,000 and 6 months imprisonment.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 Persons knowingly (civil crime) or willfully (criminal crime) engaged in

violations of endangered species law subject to various penalties ranging from

maximums of $500 to $50,000 and from maximums of 6 months to 1 year

imprisonment. Criminal violations also result in loss of any permits or leases

authorizing use of Federal land.

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 Persons violating quarantine of noxious weeds or promoting their dissemination

subject to penalties of up to $5,000 or up to 1 year imprisonment (or both).

Federal Land Policy and Management Persons violating provision of act regarding use and protection of public lands

Act of 1976 subject to penalties up to $1,000 or up to 12 months imprisonment (or both).

Archeological Resources Protection Persons damaging, removing, or defacing archeological resource on Federal

Act of 1979 public lands subject to criminal penalties ranging from maximum of $10,000 to

$100,000 and from maximum of 1 year to 5 years imprisonment. Civil penalties

assigned by land manager.

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 Persons importing, exporting, selling, or purchasing wildlife in violation of

(wildlife) Federal laws subject to civil and criminal penalties ranging from maximum of

$250 to $20,000 and up to 5 years imprisonment.

Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1986 Persons or organizations violating compliance orders for management of

hazardous wastes subject to civil and criminal penalties ranging from

maximums of $25,000 to $1,000,000 and from 2 to 15 years imprisonment.

National Forest System Drug Control Persons acting to harm Federal officials or Federal property subject to penalties

Act of 1986 ranging from maximums of $10,000 to $20,000 and from maximum of 10 to 20

years imprisonment. Special enforcement powers assigned to Forest Service

employees (carry firearms, make arrests).

Forest Resource Conservation and Persons illegally exporting unprocessed Federal timber subject to penalties

Shortage Relief Act of 1990 ranging from maximum of $75,000 to $500,000. Violators may be barred from

(timber exports) purchasing Federal timber for up to 5 years.

National Wildlife Refuge Persons violating act’s provisions subject to fines prescribed by Title 18 U.S.C.

Administration Act of 1966 or up to 1 year imprisonment (or both).

Sources: Coggins and others (2001); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1993); West Publishing Company (1997).


Table 3—Final rules issued by Federal natural resource agencies, by agency (1997-2001)

Year

Agency 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

USDA Forest Service 6 10 9 5 13

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 3 1 1 2 0

USDI Bureau of Land Management 13 14 5 6 10

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 54 57 56 63 52

USDI National Park Service 5 2 5 4 3

Note: Information for 2001 is for January through October 2001.

Source: National Archives and Records Administration (2001a).

Table 4—Environmental and natural resource statutes subject to litigation

in Federal district and appellate courts, by major Federal statutory category

and number of cases (1980-1990)

Federal statute category and law No. of cases

Fish and wildlife laws

Endangered Species Act of 1973 57

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 2

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 1

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 1

Wild Horses and Burros Protection Act of 1971 2

Total fish and wildlife cases 63

Waste and pollution prevention laws

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 1

(amended 1996)

Noise Control Act of 1972 4

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1889 (as amended) 27

Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 5

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977 6

Toxic Substances Control Act of 1989 5

Total waste and pollution cases 48

Planning, land use, and management laws

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 10

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

of 1974 1

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 8

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 11

Minerals Leasing Act of 1920 2

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 4

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 37

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 2

Total land use and management cases 75

Total all cases 186

Source: Alden and Ellefson (1997).


134 citations, 49 arrests, 57 criminal convictions, 16 felony

convictions, and 17 civil penalties (Carnett 1991; U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service 2001).

The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement

program addresses a wide variety of illegal activities both

domestically and internationally. Authority for this stems

from 14 laws and several treaties specific to wildlife and

plants. Information identifying enforcement actions that

directly and exclusively involve forests is limited, although

certain actions clearly have relevance to forests and

forestry. Examples are pursuit of habitat destruction cases,

promotion and enforcement of habitat conservation plans

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, investigation

of domestic crimes involving federally protected species,

monitoring and regulation of unlawful trade in domestic

wildlife, and investigation of environmental hazards and

contaminants that pose a special threat to wildlife. The

agency’s 2000 caseload involving forestry or closely

related matters was as follows: archeological destruction,

6 cases; eagle protection infractions, 120 cases; endangered species violations, 4,101 cases; National Wildlife

Refuge trespass, 228 cases; and wild bird conservation

violations, 64 cases. With a budget of nearly $50 million,

the agency in 2001 employed 253 agents, 94 wildlife

inspectors, and a staff of wildlife forensics scientists.

Information identifying the portion of the agency’s law

enforcement budget and personnel that are devoted specifically to matters involving forests is not available (U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

2001).

The USDA Forest Service enforcement program focuses

on curbing a variety of illegal activities ( for example,

arson, theft, vandalism, and use of controlled substances)

that occur primarily in the National Forest System. To

Table 5—Federal fiscal and educational programs promoting or evoking actions important to the sustainability of

forests, by program focus and administering agency (2001)

Federal statute or program Principal administering agency Program focus

National Environmental Education U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental education, grants,

Act of 1990 internships, and awards

Conservation Reserve Program U.S. Department of Agriculture Educational and financial assistance to

(Farm Bill 1995) (Farm Service Agency) reduce soil erosion

Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical and financial assistance and

of 1978 (Forestry Incentives, Forest (Forest Service) land protection via easements

Stewardship, Stewardship Incentives,

Forest Legacy)

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act U.S. Department of the Interior Technical and financial assistance for

of 1980 (Fish and Wildlife Service) planning

Reforestation Tax Incentives Internal Revenue Service and Reforestation tax incentive, investment

(Recreational Boating Safety and U.S. Department of Agriculture tax credit, reforestation trust fund

Facilities Improvement Act of 1980) (Forest Service)

Renewable Resources Extension Act U.S. Department of Agriculture Education and technical assistance

of 1978 (Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service)

Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 U.S. Department of Agriculture Education and technical assistance

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program U.S. Department of Agriculture Financial incentives for wildlife

(Federal Agricultural Improvement (Natural Resources Conservation habitat improvement

and Reform Act of 1996) Service)

Environmental Quality Incentives U.S. Department of Agriculture Educational, financial, and technical

Program (Farm Bill 1996) (Natural Resources Conservation assistance for conservation activities

Service)

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1993), West Publishing Company (1997), and various agency documents describing programs and

statutory authority.


facilitate this work, the agency has established the Law

Enforcement Management Reporting System (LEMARS),

a data retrieval system that provides management with a

means of identifying and following law enforcement activities. The system is designed to consistently and accurately

document information on violations occurring within the

National Forest System by type, location, resources damaged, and estimated property loss. Numbers of law enforcement incidents and violations on the national forests have

risen substantially in recent years, going from about

144,000 in 1996 to more than 285,000 in 2000 (U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2000). Timber

trespass incidents on the national forests in 1994 totaled

143,232 (1992: 114,328; 1993: 111,512), with closely

related incidents numbering 8,209 in the same year (1992:

5,414; 1993: 6,168). The agency’s law enforcement budget

in 1998 was $64.0 million, as compared to $8.3 million in

1992. The agency conducts law enforcement investigations

with a staff of about 450 professionals, who are assigned

to the agency’s regional administrative centers and to the

national headquarters in Washington, D.C. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2001).

State Government Capacity

Authorities and agencies—States have substantial institutional capacity to enforce laws, regulations, and guidelines

that will further the application of standards essential for

forest sustainability. An assessment conducted in 1992

found that many States had programs promoting Stateadopted best forest practices, and that these programs

focused on a wide variety of forest benefits (for example,

water quality, reforestation, timber harvesting, forest protection, wildlife protection, recreation, and aesthetic qualities). Eleven percent of these best practices were enforced

by regulatory means, with such an approach being most

commonly applied to activities involving water quality,

wildlife, endangered species, wildfire, insects, and diseases

(table 6). Other State programs included technical assistance (28 percent), education and extension (27 percent),

fiscal incentives (15 percent), voluntary guidelines (13 percent), and tax incentives (6 percent) (Ellefson and others

1995).

Lists of State laws authorizing enforcement action focused

on nonpoint forest sources of water pollution have been

compiled periodically. These authorities exist both as

comprehensive State water pollution control laws and as

State forest practices laws focused specifically on nonpoint

sources of pollutants. Nearly all States have laws of the

first kind, while slightly more than 30 States have forest

laws that grant legal authority to enforce application of

water-pollution prevention activities (Appendix table B.1).

Further evidence of institutional enforcement capacity

with regard to nonpoint pollutants has been gathered by

the National Association of State Foresters (2001). In

2000, 21 percent of States used only voluntary programs

to promote forestry best management practices on private

forests; 35 percent used voluntary programs plus a backup

enforcement penalty (a “bad actor” or “contingency” law)

for failure to willingly apply best management practices;

27 percent used only regulatory programs for enforcement; and 17 States used some combination of all three

approaches. The numbers of States that have established

legal enforcement authority with respect to forest practices

are as follows: forest practice standards generally, 11 States;

lake and stream protection standards, 27 States; wetland

protection standards, 23 States; stream crossing standards,

23 States; sediment and erosion control standards, 29

States; chemical application standards, 15 States; storm

water discharge standards, 10 States; and laws authorizing

actions against especially troublesome landowners and

timber harvesters (bad-actor laws), 12 States.

The diversity of State agency capacity and involvement in

the enforcement of forest resource standards is great

(Ellefson and others 2001 and 2002). In the year 2000,

more than 100 State cabinet-level executive branch units

were so engaged, while more than 200 entities at the firsttier subcabinet level had direct or indirect responsibility

for enforcement activities (table 7). More than 50 governing bodies and advisory bodies to executive branch units

also had enforcement responsibilities in various States.

Over half of the first-tier subcabinet entities so involved

had moderate or substantial influence over the use, management, and protection of forests. Governing or advisory

bodies had somewhat less enforcement influence: only 4

of 10 had moderate or substantial influence.

In some States, the enforcement of forest-practice standards is constrained by State laws that limit or condition

the ability to adopt enforceable regulations that are more

stringent than any Federal environmental regulations.

Known as “no more-stringent” laws, such statutes occur in

about one-third of the States and are usually but not always

focused on nonpoint sources (including forest sources) of

water pollutants. For example, Montana State law prohibits

rules “more stringent than the comparable Federal regulations or guidelines that address the same circumstances”;

Kentucky forbids imposition under any permit of “any

limitation, monitoring requirement, or other condition

which is more stringent than . . . would be applicable

under Federal regulation”; Oregon bars the Environmental

Quality Commission and the Department of Environmental

Quality from “promulgating or enforcing any effluent

limitation upon nonpoint source discharges from forest

operations on forestlands unless mandated under the Clean

Water Act”; and Idaho requires environmental agencies in

the water pollution control area to “not impose requirements beyond those of the Federal Clean Water Act.”
	

Table 6—State government programs promoting best-forest-practice standards on private forests,

by forestry activity, region, and type of program (1992)

Number of States in region having program type Major forestry

activity and North- Lake Mid- Mid- South- South Great Rocky

type of program east States Atlantic Continent east Central Plains Mtn. West Total

Protect water quality

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 46

Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 5 5 5 6 5 47

Voluntary guidelines 5 3 6 4 5 5 1 4 1 34

Tax incentives 1 1 4 3 0 1 3 1 0 14

Fiscal incentives 2 3 5 3 1 4 5 4 2 29

Regulatory programs 6 1 5 1 4 1 0 2 6 26

Promote reforestation

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 6 5 4 5 6 46

Technical assistance 6 3 6 5 6 5 5 6 4 46

Voluntary guidelines 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 1 15

Tax incentives 2 3 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 16

Fiscal incentives 5 2 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 37

Regulatory programs 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 6 14

Improve timber

harvesting methods

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 4 5 5 6 45

Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 6 5 5 6 4 47

Voluntary guidelines 4 2 6 1 3 3 2 4 2 27

Tax incentives 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 9

Fiscal incentives 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 2 1 13

Regulatory programs 4 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 6 17

Protect from wildfire,

insects, and diseases

Educational programs 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 47

Technical assistance 6 3 7 4 6 5 4 6 6 47

Voluntary guidelines 3 0 3 1 2 3 2 4 2 20

Tax incentives 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 6

Fiscal incentives 1 1 4 2 1 0 2 4 2 17

Regulatory programs 5 2 3 1 3 2 1 4 6 27

Protect wildlife and

endangered species

Educational programs 6 3 7 5 6 5 4 5 5 46

Technical assistance 5 3 6 5 6 5 5 5 4 44

Voluntary guidelines 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 18

Tax incentives 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3

Fiscal incentives 3 2 5 3 2 4 5 2 2 28

Regulatory programs 4 2 2 0 3 1 1 2 5 20

Enhance recreation and

aesthetic qualities

Educational programs 6 3 6 4 5 5 4 5 3 43

Technical assistance 6 3 7 5 5 5 5 6 3 45

Voluntary guidelines 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 16

Tax incentives 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 8

Fiscal incentives 4 1 6 2 2 4 2 3 1 25

Regulatory programs 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 8

Note: Regional groupings of States are Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT; Lake States: MI, MN, WI; Mid-Atlantic: DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV;

Mid-Continent: IL, IN, KT, MO, OH; Southeast: AL, FL GA, MS, NC, SC; South Central: AR, LA, OK, TN, TX; Great Plains: IA, KS, NB, ND, SD;

Rocky Mountain: AZ, CO, MT, NM, UT, WY; West: AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA.

Source: Ellefson and others (1995).



Other States with similar statutory provisions are Florida,

Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South

Dakota, Utah, and Wisconsin. Not all prohibit outright the

adoption of enforcement standards more stringent than

Federal law; many require a detailed and complex set of

justifications and procedural reviews if proposed State

standards are more stringent than Federal requirements.

Among problems with “no more-stringent” laws is the loss

of State flexibility to address unique and especially severe

resource problems that may require more severe enforceable measures than those authorized by Federal law

(Environmental Law Institute 1997).

Enforcement mechanisms—State agencies that are

responsible for administering forest-practice regulatory

programs focused on private forests have substantial institutional capacity to enforce laws and rules. They do so in a

variety of ways, including the use of informal conferences,

notices to comply, stop-work orders, corrective actions,

injunctions, and civil and criminal penalties. Information

describing the nature of these enforcement actions is

readily available from State agencies responsible for such

programs (Ellefson and others 1995). For example, from

1984 through 1991, regulatory enforcement actions in

California numbered as follows: misdemeanor actions,

461; injunctions, none; license denials, 4; and corrective

actions, 110. In Oregon during 1989, 109 citations were

issued as follows: failure to notify of intent to harvest, 32

percent of citations; improper harvest activities, 24 percent; improper written plans, 16 percent; road construction

and maintenance, 15 percent; incomplete reforestation, 9

percent; and inappropriate chemical application, 2 percent.

Similar information exists for other States with regulatory

programs focused on forests.

State forest-practice laws often authorize State agencies to

repair damage caused by violations of forest-practice rules.

For example, the Washington Department of Natural

Table 7—State government executive branch units exercising enforcement functions involving the use,

management, and protection of forests, by organizational level and type of activity (2000)

Cabinet or sub-cabinet level

executive branch units Governing or

Subcabinet Subcabinet advisory bodies to

Cabinet level level executive branch

Primary enforcement function level first tier second tier units

Functional enforcement activities

Administration, personnel, operations 4 10 2 0

Information, information management 5 29 12 3

Law, legal counsel 51 27 3 0

Occupational licensing 2 6 1 9

Planning, budgeting, review, analysis 8 18 9 3

Regulation, permits, enforcement 1 22 11 3

Other 13 17 3 3

Total 84 129 41 21

Resource-oriented enforcement activities

Air quality, pollutant management 1 29 9 8

Energy conservation 14 9 5 1

Environmental quality, protection, 22 16 0 21

management

Waste management, recycling 0 19 7 4

Chemical and pesticide abatement 0 4 4 2

Water quality, pollutant management 0 33 15 6

Other 1 12 4 2

Total 38 122 44 44

Total 122 251 85 65

Note: Some units recorded more than once because of multiple enforcement functions.

Source: Ellefson and others (2001, 2002).


Resources “may expend funds available to undertake and

complete [corrective forest practices], and operator, timber

owner, and forest landowner shall be jointly liable for the

actual, direct cost thereof.” Similarly, in Oregon, “the State

Forester or by contract [shall] repair the damage or correct

the unsatisfactory condition . . . and shall prepare an itemized [cost] statement thereof and shall deliver a copy to the

operator, timber owner and landowner.” Under Maryland’s

Critical Areas Act, illegal timber cutting resulting in failure to reforest can result in a circuit court’s assessing

violators the cost of replanting the trees. And in Vermont,

the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources may “fix

and order compensation for any public property destroyed,

damaged or injured [as a result of unacceptable discharge

in waters]” and may order persons responsible for water

pollution to reimburse governments that have taken corrective action. Other States that have authority to take corrective action include Idaho and Nevada, where operators

and landowners who fail to take corrective action and subsequently do not reimburse the State for the cost of doing

so may be refused future permits to harvest timber or may

have liens imposed on their forest property. In Idaho, for

example, the State will not accept an operator’s notification of intent to harvest timber until corrective action is

taken on a previously harvested site. In California and

Oregon, the State has authority to place a lien on property.

Oregon’s authority in this respect is clear: failure to reimburse the State for corrective actions “shall constitute a

general lien upon the real and personal property of the

operator, timber owner, and landowner . . . and may be

foreclosed in the manner provided by law.”

Laws known as “bad-actor laws” or “contingency regulations” have been adopted by at least 12 States in recent

years. These laws impose obligations only on those landowners or timber harvesters who have already committed

or are in the process of committing violations of standards

considered necessary to forest sustainability. Under these

types of statutes, the owner or harvester has no prior obligation (to, for example, obtain a permit before harvesting),

and the enforcement response tools are more limited, more

narrowly focused, and less complex than might occur

under comprehensive regulatory laws. States with badactor laws or contingency regulations include Delaware,

Idaho, New Hampshire, Virginia, and West Virginia. In

Delaware the State Forester can issue special orders requiring cessation of silvicultural activities that are likely to

pollute a waterway and can require implementation of

corrective measures. In Virginia a cease-and-desist order

may be issued and corrective actions may be ordered. In

Idaho, if a landowner or timber harvester fails to apply

appropriate best management practices or is known to

have willfully caused degradation of water resources, an

operating bond may be required as a condition for continuing timber-harvesting activities. In West Virginia, if

failure to use a particular best management practice is

causing or contributing to soil erosion and water pollution,

an order for immediate suspension of work may be issued

if there is a present danger to life or if there is risk of

uncorrectable soil erosion. In New Hampshire, the State is

authorized to issue cease-and-desist orders to suspend

logging or forestry operations in areas where such operations are likely to result in pollution of surface water or

ground water.

Information about civil and criminal penalties for violation of legally established forest-practice standards is

readily available from various compilations of State

forestry and related law. For example, penalties of the

following nature existed in 1992: Alaska—civil penalty up

to $10,000 per violation; California—criminal penalty up

to $1,000, or 6 months in prison, or both; Connecticut—

civil penalty up to $5,000 for each offense; Idaho—criminal penalty misdemeanor violation with fines recoverable

by administering agency; Maine—civil penalty for failure

to notify (harvest of less than 50 cords: up to $50, more

than 50 cords: up to $1,000 each occurrence), continued

operation after cessation order up to $1,000 per day;

Massachusetts—civil penalty up to $100 per acre for each

acre in violation, harvest without license $500 per violation; Montana—civil penalty up to $1,000 per violation of

Streamside Management Act; Nevada—criminal penalty

misdemeanor fines and prison sentence; New Mexico—

criminal penalty misdemeanor fines and prison sentence;

Oregon—civil penalty up to $10,000 per violation and

criminal penalty misdemeanor fine of $2,500 or 1 year in

prison for individuals and $5,000 or twice the gain for corporations; Virginia—civil penalty up to $5,000 per violation; Vermont—civil penalty up to $10,000 per day of

violation and criminal penalty up to $25,000 or up to 6

months in prison, or both; Washington—civil penalty up to

$5,000 per violation and criminal penalty $100 to $1,000

or 1 year in prison, or both; and West Virginia—civil

penalty up to $2,500 first offense and up to $5,000 subsequent offenses (Ellefson and others 1995). Some States

rely on a matrix of factors when imposing penalties, one

factor being prior violations committed by a landowner or

timber harvester (for example, Montana’s implementation

of streamside management zone regulations).

Investments and personnel—States employ professionals

in enforcement activities important to sustainable forestry.

Unfortunately, nearly all of the readily accessible information concerns enforcement personnel involved with forestpractice laws administered by State agencies. Information

about enforcement and investigation personnel involved in

arson, theft, and fraud may exist but has not been compiled

and analyzed. Similarly, information on the enforcement

personnel of agencies with broader environmental responsibilities that are relevant to forest resource conditions (for


example, pollution control agencies, departments of agriculture, environmental quality boards) is just becoming

available (Ellefson and others 2003). In 2003, the 10 States

with comprehensive forest-practice regulatory programs

administered by lead forestry agencies employed more than

470 full-time-equivalents (FTEs) to carry out enforcement

activities (table 8). In 1991, the 320 FTEs engaged in such

activities represented only 5 percent of the total FTEs

of lead forestry agencies in the 10 States considered. If

enforcement personnel affiliated with agencies that are not

traditionally considered lead forestry agencies is included,

the number exceeds 400 (table 9).

Information about the intensity of enforcement efforts

(investment per acre, personnel per acre, and number of

field inspections) is especially relevant to an understanding

of institutional enforcement capacity. Such information

has been gathered and analyzed for only the 10 States with

lead forestry agencies that are responsible for comprehensive forest-practice regulatory programs. Institutional

capacity measurements for 1992 for these States were as

follows: Alaska: 0.05 FTEs per 100,000 acres of private

forests, $7 investment per 1,000 acres, 40 percent of FTE

time on field inspections; California: 1.26 FTEs per

100,000 acres of private forests, $543 investment per

1,000 acres, 40 percent of FTE time on field inspections;

Idaho: 0.42 FTEs per 100,000 acres of private forests,

$164 investment per 1,000 acres, 60 percent of FTE time

on field inspections; Maine: 0.04 FTEs per 100,000 acres

of private forests, $20 investment per 1,000 acres, 10 percent of FTE time on field inspections; Massachusetts: 0.59

FTEs per 100,000 acres of private forests, $20 investment

per 1,000 acres, 35 percent of FTE time on field inspections; Nevada: 4.46 FTEs per 100,000 acres of private

forests, $16,234 investment per 1,000 acres, 45 percent of

FTE time on field inspections; New Mexico: 0.36 FTEs

per 100,000 acres of private forests, $27 investment per

1,000 acres, percentage of FTE time on field inspections

not available; Oregon: 0.75 FTEs per 100,000 acres of

private forests, $318 investment per 1,000 acres, 45 percent of FTE time on field inspections; and Washington:

1.26 FTEs per 100,000 acres, $836 investment per 1,000

acres, 15 percent of FTE time on field inspections

(Ellefson and others 1995).

State capacity to enforce the use of forest-practice codes

often depends on informed landowners and professionally

astute timber harvesters, as well as professional resource

managers such as foresters and wildlife managers. In 1995,

25 States had active registration, certification, or licensing

programs for timber harvesters (MacKay and others 1996).

Of this total, six States had licensing programs under which

a person was not allowed to conduct timber-harvesting

activities without demonstrating through written or field

exams an informed ability to do so. In nearly all cases, an

understanding of a State’s code of best forest practices was

the basis for granting a license. In 2001, 26 States reported

certification programs for timber harvesters, and 13 States

reported some form of licensing of professional foresters

(National Association of State Foresters 2001).

Monitoring and analysis—Enforcement activities of State

forestry agencies rely on their ability to monitor the rate at

which the forest-practice standards are being applied.

Table 8—Lead State forestry agency staffing for the administration of comprehensive forest practice

regulatory programs, by State (1985-2003)

Staffing

State 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 2003

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - full-time equivalents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Alaska 6.5 6.5 4.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 7.9

California 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 74.0 83.0 94.0 124.5

Connecticut * * * * * * * 3.0

Idaho 4.5 5.5 5.5 8.0 10.0 8.0 13.7 20.0

Maine * * * * * 6.0 6.0 12.7

Massachusetts 16.0 16.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 16.0

Nevada 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0

New Mexico 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0

Oregon 44.1 48.2 48.2 53.6 62.6 64.3 64.3 94.0

Washington 58.1 58.1 73.0 73.0 77.5 77.5 112.8 176.0

Total 209.2 214.3 228.2 233.1 253.6 273.1 320.8 470.1

Note: Asterisk indicates information not available or program not established. Connecticut Forest Practices Act established June 28, 1991.

Source: Ellefson and others (1995, 2003).


Table 9—Staffing of State forest practice regulatory programs,

by selected States and administering agency (1991)

State and agency Staffing

full-time equivalents

Alaska

Division of Forestry 3.0

Division of Fish and Game 5.0

Department of Environmental Conservation 2.0

California

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 94.0

Regional water quality agencies 12.0

Department of Fish and Game 10.0

State Water Resources Board 1.0

Connecticut

Division of Forestry 4.0 (est)

Florida

Regional water management districts 2.8

Idaho

Department of Lands 13.7

Division of Environmental Quality 4.0

Maine

Maine Forest Service 6.0

Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 0.5

Land-use Regulation Commission 1.0

Department of Environmental Protection 0.1

Maryland

Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program 8.0

Waterways Access Program 4.0 (est)

Nontidal Wetlands Program 1.0

Massachusetts

Division of Forests and Parks 15.0

Montana 2.0

Division of Forestry

Nevada

Division of Forestry 5.0

New Mexico

Division of Forestry and Resources Conservation 7.0

Oregon

Department of Forestry 64.3

Department of Environmental Quality 2.0

Department of Fish and Wildlife 2.0

Washington

Division of Forest Practices 112.8

Department of Fisheries 7.0

Department of Ecology 9.2

Department of Wildlife 5.0

Total 403.4

Source: Ellefson and others (1995).


Only then can the agencies redirect or intensify their

enforcement efforts toward critical problems or opportunities. In 1997, 34 States conducted compliance-monitoring

programs to determine whether relevant codes were being

applied (table 10) (Ellefson and others 2001a). Although

nearly one-third of the States had not initiated a formal

compliance-monitoring program, this does not mean that

forest practices are not monitored in those States. In some,

monitoring activities (inspections) are carried out when

landowners participate in cost-share programs (for example, Federal Forestry Incentives Program and Stewardship

Incentives Program) or when formally designated Tree

Farms are reinspected. In States where forestry operations

are by law incomplete until approved by an inspector, the

required preharvest and postharvest inspections are considered compliance monitoring. Legislative directives often

compel compliance monitoring. Montana requires determination of “how current forest practices are affecting

watersheds,” Minnesota requires “a program for monitoring silviculture practices and the application of timber harvest and forest management guidelines,” and Washington

requires “annual assessment of how regulations and

voluntary processes are working” (Ellefson and others

2001a).

The forest practices most commonly monitored by States

are those that most strongly affect water quality, riparian

areas, and forested wetlands (table 11). In 2000, the results

of monitoring were found to be used in a variety of ways,

including modification of education and training programs

(in 23 States), targeting of technical assistance programs

(in 20 States), modification of existing guidelines (in 11

States), and development of additional guidelines (in 12

States) (National Association of State Foresters 2001). In

1997, the lead State forestry agency was the only agency

engaged in monitoring compliance with recommended

best forest practices in only 20 States (Ellefson and others

2001b).

Local Government Capacity

Many local units of government have laws, rules, and guidelines that are significant contributors to forest sustainability

(ordinances protecting special resources, limiting timber

harvesting, preserving individual trees). Whether they have

the capacity to actually enforce these laws, rules, and guidelines is largely unknown. Hickman and Martus (1991)

identified nearly 400 local ordinances regulating forestry

practices in 1991, with more than 70 percent established

since 1980 and half established since 1985. In 1993,

Martus and others (1995) identified 522 local ordinances

regulating forestry activities in 24 States, with 68 percent

of them in northeastern States and 27 percent in southern

States. In 1996, there were more than 100 local ordinances

directing the application of forest practices in New York

alone. As of 2000, county and municipal governments in

10 of the 13 southern States had enacted a total of 346

forest-related ordinances (an increase from 7 States and

141 ordinances in 1992), most of which were enacted in

States experiencing rapid urban expansion (Wear and

Greis 2002).

Local enforcement potential is suggested by the total

number of local political jurisdictions within a State that

could possibly adopt laws, rules, and guidelines affecting

forest sustainability. In 1991, an estimated 8 percent of all

Table 10—State programs monitoring compliance with best-forest-practice standards, by region and

number of States (1997)

Compliance monitoring conducted

Monitoring

program On On Incentive Individual

exists On all sample of selected Monitor provided landowner

harvested harvested sites more training to private compliance

Region Yes No sites sites intensely required landowner made public

North 11 9 2 9 4 10 2 5

South 13 0 2 12 2 11 0 7

West 10 7 4 5 7 7 1 9

Total 34 16 8 26 13 28 3 21

Note: Compliance monitoring may be focused on forest-practice guideline programs that are voluntary, mandated for landowners and harvesters,

or both. Nationally, 13 States have compliance monitoring programs that are part of a voluntary practice program (North: 4, South: 8, West: 1); 9

that are part of a mandatory program (North: 3, South: 1, West: 5); and 12 that involve both voluntary and mandatory programs (North: 4, South: 4,

West: 4). (North Region: CT, DL, IA, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WI, WV; South Region: AL, AR, FL, GA,

KY, LA, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA; West Region: AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, KS, MT, NB, ND, NM, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY.)

Source: Ellefson and others (2001a).


local jurisdictions nationwide had forest-practice enforcement potential. This estimate is based on the known frequency of forest-practice regulatory programs at the local

level in the following States: Colorado, 3 of 63 counties;

Delaware, 1 of 3 counties; Florida, various of 57 counties;

Georgia, 11 of 159 counties; Illinois, 100 of 1,200 municipalities and 1 of 102 counties; Louisiana, 1 of 64 parishes;

Maryland, 20 of 23 counties; Michigan, 10 to 15 of 1,200

townships; Minnesota, 1 of 87 counties; New Jersey, 300

of 567 municipalities and 15 of 21 counties; New York, 70

of 900 municipalities; North Dakota, 7 of 53 counties;

Pennsylvania, 13 of 420 municipalities; Vermont, 2 of 251

municipalities; and Wisconsin, 3 to 4 of 1,500 municipalities and 2 of 72 counties (Ellefson and others 1995).

In some cases, State forest-practice laws prohibit or

severely restrict local governments from regulating forest

practices. The argument is that the existence of many and

potentially conflicting regulatory jurisdictions can be an

administrative burden to those owning land or operating

businesses in many different parts of a State. Oregon’s

Forest Practices Act is quite specific in this respect: “. . .

no unit of local government shall adopt any rules, regulations or ordinances or take any other actions that prohibit,

limit, regulate, subject to approval or in any other way

affect forest practices on forestland.” Idaho and Washington

also restrict local governments from developing forestpractice codes and implementing them.

Summary of Conditions

Enforcement of accepted forestry standards is often an

important and necessary step in furthering societal interests

in the sustainability of forests and the communities that

depend on them. This review of institutional enforcement actions at Federal, State, and local levels of government suggests the following:

• Enforcement authority and institutional capacity needed

to achieve standards of forest sustainability exist for

nearly all State and Federal agencies that have responsibility for forests and related resources. However, the

extent to which this capacity is exercised varies considerably within different levels of government and

among different agencies. Enforcement authority is

noticeably scattered among many different agencies of

State government.

• Institutional capacity for enforcement is exercised in a

variety of ways, ranging from preharvest reviews and

postharvest inspections to fines and imprisonment, and

from court-ordered injunctions to recovering the cost of

repairing damaged resources through liens on private

property. Because the resource, social, and political

conditions associated with forests are diverse, the range

of enforcement mechanisms must be very broad. In

some respects, use of incentives to shape behavior can

be viewed as enforcement.

• Penalties associated with enforcement capacity include

broad civil and criminal actions, provisions for fines and

jail sentences, termination of actions by injunctions,

rescinding of previously granted incentives, revoking of

licenses and permits, and placement of liens on property

for violations committed. The effectiveness of these

penalties in shaping the behavior of landowners and

timber harvesters is largely unknown.

Table 11—State programs monitoring compliance with best-forest-practice

standards, by region, resource, or condition monitored and number of

States (1997)

Region (number of States)

Subject area North South West Total

Water quality 11 13 9 33

Riparian 10 11 9 30

Wetland 9 8 7 24

Soil productivity 1 5 7 13

Wildfire, insects, and diseases 3 1 9 13

Aesthetics 4 3 5 12

Wildlife habitat 2 1 8 11

Reforestation 3 1 6 10

Cultural-historic resources 2 0 3 5

Recreation 2 0 2 4

Other 1 3 5 9

Source: Ellefson and others (2001b).


• Enforcement authority and institutional capacity emanate

from both environmental law (relating, for example, to

solid waste disposal) and public health law (relating, for

example, to toxic substances), as well as law that is

specifically focused on forests and forestry practices.

There is substantial variation in the scope, focus, and

intensity of State and Federal agency enforcement capacity stemming from these different legal authorities and

relating to forests.

• Enforcement authority is very often designed and organized to be implemented in a targeted fashion. For example, enforcement actions are focused on specific sectors

(private forests), geographic areas (riparian areas),

forestry practices (clearcutting), pollutants (pesticides),

and products or benefits (timber, wildlife). Enforcement

authority and the intensity with which institutions apply

it are not uniform across these target areas.

• Enforcement of laws, rules, and guidelines is often

accomplished through the involvement of third parties.

Examples of such third parties include those that license,

certify, or register timber harvesters on the basis of their

understanding of acceptable forestry activities.

• Environmental pollution control law often exempts

forestry or silvicultural activities from the standards and

penalties specified therein, instead deferring to incentives, cost-sharing, or voluntary programs as means of

accomplishing sustainable forestry objectives.

• Enforcement actions may defer to voluntary compliance

with forest-practice standards, rules, and guidelines, but

very often link voluntary actions to some enforcement

mechanism. For example, compliance with best management practices may void the need for a permit, excuse

compliance with a related law, or make operations

immune from being defined as a nuisance.

• State governments in some cases have been extremely

reluctant to adopt programs that rigorously and directly

enforce the application of sustainable forestry practices.

Instead, they rely on voluntary compliance with such

practices, buttressed by educational and incentive programs. However, many States have adopted “bad-actor”

laws or “contingent regulations” that focus enforcement

on the exceptionally uncooperative landowner or timber

harvester.

• State governments have often limited their enforcement

ability to sustainability standards specified by Federal

law or regulation (for example, through “no more-stringent” laws). By State law or regulation, State-adopted

standards that are more stringent than Federal standards

are not allowed. Such limitations on enforcement relate

primarily to control of water pollutants from nonpoint

sources.

• Local units of government are often engaged in enforcement actions involving forest sustainability, although

many States limit or prohibit local regulation. The

extent and effectiveness of local regulatory enforcement

of sustainable forestry practices are not known.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues and

trends involving the enforcement of laws, regulations, and

guidelines relevant to forest sustainability and conservation. Examples of this literature (from which the following

issues and trends are drawn) are: Anderson 2000, Cubbage

and Moffat 1997, Ellefson and others 1995, Ellefson and

others 2001b and 2002, Environmental Law Institute 1997

and 1998, Ice and others 1997, National Association of

State Foresters 2001, National Research Council 1998,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2002, and

Wear and Greis 2002.

• The number of Federal, State, and local government

agencies involved in the enforcement of standards of

forest sustainability has increased dramatically over the

past 3 decades. In most cases, each agency’s enforcement

authority is grounded in that agency’s responsibility for

a single forest value (for example, air, water, or wildlife).

This requires much coordination within and between

governments, and forces landowners and timber

harvesters to try to keep abreast of many different

enforcement provisions.

• Legal frameworks supporting the enforcement of standards of forest sustainability have been strengthened in

recent decades by many new Federal laws and regulations that directly or indirectly influence the forest

practices of public and private landowners. These

Federal laws have in many cases nurtured political and

administrative environments within which State and

local governments have sought and applied more

rigorous enforcement authority.

• Management approaches of regulatory agencies and

land management agencies have become increasingly

divergent. Land management agencies attempt to focus

on long-term ecosystem and social needs (for example,

implementation of long-term strategic plans), while

regulatory agencies tend to focus in the short term on

individual proposed actions (for example, review

permits, inspect projects).

• Institutional frameworks supporting the enforcement of

standards of forest sustainability have been strengthened

in recent decades with the establishment of a large

number of Federal laws and regulations that directly or

indirectly influence the forest practices of public and

private landowners. These Federal laws have in many


cases nurtured political and administrative environments

within which State and local governments have sought

and applied more vigorous enforcement authority.

• Enforcement authorities of governments at different

levels have increased in number and complexity, and

this suggests a need for more coordination and greater

clarification of roles and responsibilities. This is true

especially for the enforcement authorities of local

governments.

• State governments have made increasing use of “badactor” laws or “contingent regulatory” laws. Under such

laws, landowners and harvesters do not have prior obligations to government (for example, to obtain a permit

before harvesting). Enforcement is focused on only

those landowners or timber harvesters who have already

committed or are in the process of committing a violation of law or rules.

• Enforceable authority is increasingly being established

for targeted areas such as specially protected watersheds,

estuaries, and coastal waters; wild and scenic rivers; fish

and wildlife habitat; and specially designated waters

that are considered impaired. This focusing of authority

provides for more explicit operating requirements for

landowners and timber harvesters.

• States are increasingly limiting the expansion of regulatory enforcement via State laws that prohibit adoption

of standards that are more stringent than Federal standards for forestry, natural resources, or environmental

protection generally. This decreases legal and administrative flexibility to address issues of sustainability that

are unique to a State.

• Enforcement authorities emanating from forest law and

from broad environmental law have increasingly come

into conflict as environmental agencies have more

aggressively enforced environmental statutes. This is

especially common for enforcement authorities involving nonpoint-source water pollution.

Information Adequacy

Specification

Information about the institutional capacity for enforcing

laws, rules, and guidelines that are considered important to

forest sustainability has been surveyed by various public

and private organizations. In 1999, the National Association of State Foresters surveyed State forestry agency

information about institutional enforcement capacity. It

was found that 6 States had abundant information about

the enforcement of laws, rules, and guidelines and that 19

had sufficient information of this kind. Twenty-one States

had no information about enforcement. Eight States reported

that the quality of their information was excellent, 19 that

it was adequate, and 5 that it was poor (National Association of State Foresters 2001).

The following questions relate to the gathering of information that might help us better assess institutional capacity

to enforce standards of forest sustainability and

conservation:

• Measurement information—Information about which

variables are significant and how they should be measured to accurately portray conditions involving enforcement capacity has not been assembled. What conditions

should be measured and compiled (for example, personnel per unit area, area of forest covered, number of landowners and harvesters involved, rate of compliance with

standards, rates of fines, durations of prison sentences,

number of open cases pending administrative or judicial

review)? What measurable conditions are the best indicators that standards of sustainable forest management

are being met? How often are these variables to be measured? Are there special measurement needs associated

with different types of enforcement activity?

• Extent of enforcement activity information—Information

about the extent of institutional enforcement capacity

has often been assembled in an uncoordinated way, so

that the results depict only current conditions and lack

local, regional, and national consistency. What are the

legal mandates for enforcement at various geographic

levels and by various organizations? How are these

requirements changing over time? Are there differences

between requirements at different levels of government?

Are these requirements consistent? Are there legal and

constitutional issues at stake between governments?

Exactly how much enforcement is occurring (number of

violations, judicial injunctive relief, prosecutions, Federal

contract violations) and what is its focus (by forest benefit, landowner category)? How much is being invested in

enforcement (in money, personnel, equipment]? What

are the educational requirements for employment in

enforcement programs (basic, specialized, continuing

education)? What is the status of local government

enforcement programs (extent, reason for proliferation)?

Are compilations of information about enforcement as it

is currently carried out useful for guiding future policy

and program direction? Is there a need to expand

centralized reporting systems for enforcement (LOOT

system, LEMARS system, reporting of county and

municipal enforcement activities)?

• Responsible organization information—Comprehensive

information about what organizations are actively

engaged in enforcement activities has not been assembled. What government agencies are engaged in

enforcement, and at what levels? What legal authority

assigns them responsibility, and is this authority being


interpreted accurately? Do different public organizations

engaging in code development have similar or differing

goals and objectives, and do any differences hinder code

development and implementation? Do private organizations have a role in enforcement, and if they do, what is

the nature of that role and what prompted such involvement (for example, privately sponsored forest certification programs)? Are there organizational patterns in the

public and private sector that, if known and publicized,

would enhance overall enforcement of standards of

forest sustainability?

• Coordination information—Information about requirements for coordination of enforcement activities among

and between various levels of government has not been

assembled. What conflicts exist between the various

entities engaged in enforcement? How might they be

productively resolved? What coordination is required?

Do requirements for coordination allow for crosssectoral, coordinated planning and review? Do they

ensure that the cumulative results of local, State, and

regionally undertaken enforcement will be consistent

with national requirements and vice versa? Do they

allow incorporation of ad hoc enforcement activities

occurring at various times and undertaken by various

levels of government?

• Procedure and specification information—Information

about how enforcement standards and procedures are

best developed and implemented has not been assembled.

Do current statutory requirements prescribe procedures

for developing and implementing enforcement actions?

Are these procedures detailed and restrictive, or do they

constitute a broad framework that permits administrative discretion and flexibility? Is the full intent of the

existing laws that require enforcement expressed in

current rules and administrative procedures? Do national

requirements for enforcement allow for regional and

subregional development of enforcement actions? Do

requirements specify the need for leadership in their

development? Do they give guidance to such leadership?

• Scope of enforcement information—Information about

enforcement activities frequently focuses on enforcement that is related to wildlife and water quality, failing

to comprehensively assess enforcement focused on other

forest benefits. What enforcement capacity exists for the

range of values associated with forests? What approaches

have been used to encourage development and application of enforcement actions focused on this broader

range of benefits? What legal requirements are there for

enforcement of sustainability standards for the broad

range of values associated with forests? Do these legal

requirements differ among agencies at the same level or

at different levels of government? Are any differences

complementary or competitive? Are there barriers to

developing and implementing enforcement actions other

than those focused on water and wildlife? If so, how

might they be overcome?

• Investment and incentive information—Comprehensive

information about resources devoted by various institutions to enforcement activities has not been assembled.

What is the magnitude of investment in enforcement

activities? Are there legal and administrative processes

for allocating resources to these activities, and are they

sufficient? Are there legal or fiscal provisions for

encouraging these activities, and especially for encouraging cross-sectoral development and implementation

of enforcement activities?

• Alternative types of enforcement information—Comprehensive information about the appropriateness of various

types of enforcement actions has not been compiled.

What is the array of enforcement actions (for example,

fines, imprisonment, revocation of permits, issuance of

cease-and-desist orders) that might be undertaken to

ensure that sustainability standards are applied? What is

the relative efficiency and effectiveness of each of these

approaches in fostering compliance by landowners and

timber harvesters? Are certain categories of landowners

and timber harvesters more apt to respond to certain

types of enforcement actions? What is the appropriate

scale and administrative design for successful implementation of an enforcement program?

• Effectiveness information—Information about the effectiveness of various approaches to enforcement in achieving sustainable forestry interests has not been compiled.

Are there legal or administrative requirements to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of different ways

of conducting enforcement activities? What are appropriate measures of success? Are enforcement programs

funded and staffed at the appropriate level? Are there

more effective ways to accomplish the objectives of

enforcement (for example, fiscal incentives, technical

assistance)? What opinions do stakeholders and interest

groups have of enforcement actions?

• Monitoring information—Information about the monitoring of enforcement programs and activities has not

been assembled. Are there legal requirements to monitor

the results of enforcement activities? Is the information

from monitoring activities being used to adapt enforcement actions to changing circumstances? Is the information being collected and analyzed in such a way that it

is useful to enforcement agencies? Are monitoring programs statistically well designed? What is being done to

monitor the administrative processes used to manage

enforcement programs?
	

Recommendations

As Indicator 57 suggests, our ability to influence forest

sustainability will depend a great deal on consistent, longterm enforcement of standards associated with forest

sustainability and conservation. In order to improve our

understanding of the institutional setting for such enforcement, we must address a variety of information voids. We

recommend that the following actions be taken:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews. Conduct periodic and

comprehensive reviews of institutional capacities to

enforce laws, rules, and guidelines relevant to sustainable forestry. The reviews should give special attention

to the collection of information concerning the different

types of enforcement activities, the organizations that

implement them, and the effectiveness of enforcement

actions in promoting and conserving desired forest

values. Information about enforcement at Federal, State,

and local levels of government should be gathered.

Special attention should be directed to information

about local, county, and municipal enforcement

activities, which appear to be expanding rapidly.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews. Since there is no

single source of comprehensive information about

forest-related enforcement activities, assign responsibility for conducting continuous reviews of these activities

to a specific new or current administrative unit of a

Federal agency (such as the USDA Forest Service’s Law

Enforcement and Investigations Unit, State and Private

Forestry Unit, or Research and Development Unit), a

college or university, or other nonprofit organization

(for example, the National Association of State Foresters).

This responsibility should be assigned to an organization that has achieved a good track record in addressing

the complexities of developing and implementing

enforcement programs that involve forests and their

sustainability.

• Devote resources to reviews. Invest sufficient money

and personnel in the review to obtain the type and quantity of information necessary to significantly improve

our understanding of current abilities to develop and

implement the enforcement actions that are important to

sustainable forestry.

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

Some of the words and phrases used in stating Indicator 57

have not been defined clearly. The word “enforce” is

commonly taken to mean “compel conformity with some

standard,” but the concept of compulsion is not at all appropriate in the context of a discussion of “guidelines” as they

are understood in the United States. In this country, guidelines are generally viewed as standards (criteria, touchstones, or benchmarks) to be voluntarily complied with by

landowners and timber harvesters. Only if guidelines are

viewed as being coercive (rather than adopted in response

to fiscal incentives or technical information) should they

be thought of as part of enforcement activities. It further

confuses the issue that the term “enforcement” is widely

associated with laws and regulations that make certain

actions mandatory, whereas the term “incentives” is typically associated with guidelines in a voluntary sense. We

recommend that the wording of Indicator 57 be changed to

“enforce laws and regulations and assure implementation

of guidelines,” as has been suggested elsewhere (Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry 1999).

Relationship to Other Indicators

Indicator 57 overlaps with several others, particularly as

they relate to laws, values, public participation, funding,

and planning. There is potential for difficulty in this respect

in Indicator 57’s relationship to Indicators 40 (extension

and use of new technology), 51 (best-practice codes),

54 (planning and coordination), 58 (investment in forests),

60 (information and data), and 66 (human intervention

impacts). Even though the focus of information gathering

is different for the two indicators (legal versus institutional

capacity), consideration should be given to merging

Indicator 57 and Indicator 51, which relates to best-practice codes. They have much in common conceptually, and

the information that describes them frequently has relevance both to best-practice codes and to their enforcement.

Literature Cited

Alden, A.; Ellefson, P.V. 1997. Natural resource and environmental litigation in the Federal courts: a review of parties, statutes, and circuits

involved. Staff Pap. 125. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota,

Department of Forest Resources. 50 p.

American Forest and Paper Association. 1994. Federal laws and regulations affecting private forestry. Washington, DC: American Forest and

Paper Association. [Not paged].

Anderson, S. 2000. A short history of best management practices. Presentation, Oregon Society of American Foresters annual meeting. Durham,

NC: Forest History Society. [Not paged].

Callicott, J.B. 2000. Aldo Leopold and the foundations of ecosystem

management. Journal of Forestry. 98(5):15-22.

Carnett, C. 1991. Legal background of archeological resources protection. Archeology and Ethnography Tech. Brief 11. U.S. Department of

the Interior, National Park Service. http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/PUBS/

TECHBR/tch11pr.htm. [Date accessed: August 2001].

Coggins, G.C.; Wilkinson, C.F.; Leshy, J.D. 2001. Federal public land and

resources law. New York, NY: Foundation Press. 1,232 p.



Cubbage, F.W.; Moffat, S.O. 1997. Criterion seven, indicator 51: a review

and discussion. Unpublished document. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

25 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 2000. Has Gifford Pinchot’s regulatory vision been

realized? Journal of Forestry. 98(5):15-22.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.S. 1995. Regulation of private

forestry practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Kilgore, M.A.; Hibbard, C.M. 2003. State government

programs regulating forestry practices: current agencywide status and

review of program effectiveness. Unpublished report. St. Paul, MN:

University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 120 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Kilgore, M.A.; Phillips, M.J. 2001a. Monitoring compliance with BMPs: experience of State governments. Journal of Forestry.

99(1):11-17.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001b. Programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: an

assessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape of

State government. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department

of Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of State

agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry. 100(6):35-42.

Environmental Law Institute. 1997. Enforceable State mechanisms for

control of nonpoint source water pollution. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. 59 p.

Environmental Law Institute. 1998. Almanac of enforceable State laws to

control nonpoint source water pollution. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. 293 p.

Hickman, C.A.; Martus, C.E. 1991. Local regulation of private forestry

practices in the Eastern United States. In: Louisiana State University,

Department of Forestry. Proceedings, annual meeting of Southern

Forest Economics Workers. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State

University, Department of Forestry: 73-90.

Ice, G.G.; Stuart, G.W.; Waide, J.B. [and others]. 1997. Twenty-five years

of the Clean Water Act: how clean are forest practices? Journal of

Forestry. 95(7): 9-13.

Jones, E.S.; Taylor, C.P. 1995. Litigating agency change: the impact of the

courts and administrative appeals process on the Forest Service. Policy

Studies Journal. 23(2): 310-336.

Kerwin, C.M. 1999. Rulemaking: how government agencies write law

and make policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

294 p.

MacKay, D.G.; Ellefson, P.V.; Blinn, C.R. 1996. Registration, certification

and licensing: creating better timber harvesters. Journal of Forestry.

94(7):27-31.

Martus, C.E.; Haney, H.L.; Siegel, W.C. 1995. Local forest regulatory

ordinances: Trends in the Eastern United States. Journal of Forestry.

93(6):27-31.

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate

and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2001].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal Process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2001].

National Archives and Records Administration. 2001a. Federal Register

(1997 through October 2001). Washington, DC: National Archives and

Records Administration. [Not paged].

National Archives and Records Administration. 2001b. Codification of

proclamations and Presidential executive orders. Title 3, Code of

Federal Regulations. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records

Administration. [Not paged].

National Association of State Foresters. 2001. State non-point source pollution control programs for silviculture. http://www.stateforesters.org/

reports. [Date accessed: June 2001].

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2001. State statute forestry

citations. http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ESNR/FORESTCI.HTM.

Denver, CO. [Date accessed; June 2001].

National Research Council. 1998. Forested landscapes in perspective:

prospects and opportunities for sustainable management of America’s

nonfederal forests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 249 p.

Roundtable on Sustainable Forestry. 1999. Criterion-level summary:

indicators 53-59. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). http://

sustainableforests.net. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1993. The principal laws

relating to Forest Service activities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1,163 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Law enforcement

and investigations: FY2000. On file with: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Law Enforcement and Investigations,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Law enforcement

handbook. FSH 5309.11. http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/

get_dirs/fsh?5309.11!. Washington, D.C. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. The process predicament: how statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affect

national forest management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture. 40 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001.

Safety on public lands: protecting you and public resources.

www.blm.gov. [Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Division

of Law Enforcement: annual report FY 2000. (www.fws.gov). [Date

accessed: June 2001].

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 2001. Law

enforcement in the National Park System. http://data2.itc.nps.gov/

budget2/documents/law%20enforcement%20funding%20history.pdf

[Date accessed: June 2001].

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. Federal lands: land acquisitions

involving nonprofit conservation organizations. GAO/RCED-94-149.

Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. 49 p.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. Federal lands: information on land

owned and on acreage with conservation restrictions. GAO/RCED-95-

73FS. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. 42 p.

Wasby, S.L. 1983. Interest groups and litigation. Policy Studies Journal.

11(4): 697-670.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Ashville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p.

West Publishing Company. 1997. Selected environmental law statutes. St.

Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 1,398 p.


Appendix A

Presidential Executive Orders Representing Enforcement Actions

Relevant to Forest and Related Resources, 1961-2000

Greening Government through Environmental Management Leadership (EO 13148; 2000)

Invasive Species Federal Action Directive (authorities addressing invasive species) (EO 13112; 1999)

Federal Interagency Partnership on Lake Tahoe Ecosystem (establishment of . . . ) (EO 13057; 1997)

Federal Agency Standards for Content of Recycled Paper (EO 12995; 1996)

Management and Use of National Wildlife Refuge System (EO 12996; 1996)

International Union for Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources (legal immunity) (EO 12986; 1996)

Commission on Environmental Cooperation (establishment of . . . ) (EO 12904; 1994)

Advisory Committee on Trade and the Environment (establishment of . . . ) (EO-12905; 1994)

Environmental Cooperation Agreement (enforce NAFTA) (EO 12915; 1994)

President’s Council on Sustainable Development (establishment of . . . ) (EO-12852; 1993)

Grazing Fee on Federal Lands (establish rates for . . . ) (EO 12548; 1986)

Presidents’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (establishment of . . .) (EO 12503; 1985)

Commission on Indian Reservation Economies (establishment of . . .) (EO 12401; 1983)

Animal Damage Control on Federal Lands (environmental safeguards for . . . (EQ 12342; 1982)

Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (specify conditions of . . .) (EO 12114; 1979)

Environmental Evaluation Functions (transfer of certain federal responsibilities) (EO 12040; 1978)

Off-Road Vehicle Use on Federal Public Lands (establish conditions for . . .) (EO 11989; 1977)

Protection of Wetlands (establish responsibility and standards for . . .) (EO 11990; 1977)

Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11991; 1977)

Preservation of Endangered Species (establish responsibility and standards for . . . ) (EO 15683; 1976)

Animal Damage Control on Federal Lands (environmental safeguards for . . . ) (EO 11643; 1972)

National Forests in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin (boundary of . . .) (EO 10932; 1961)

Source: National Archives and Records Administration (2001b).


Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, andrequirements for forestry (2001)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawAlabama Water pollution control law requires a permit for discharge of water Forestry Commission has power to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations perpollutants, although certain nonpoint-source discharges from agri- taining to all phases of forestry. However, for enforcement the Commission relies

culture and silviculture are excluded from the permit requirement. on voluntary BMPs, licensing requirements for foresters, and the State’s water polluState may directly enforce against nonpoint sources, if they cause pollution control act. State law authorizes soil and water conservation districts to

violation of water quality standards or deal with any type of water “formulate regulations governing the use of lands within the district in the interestpollution resulting from negligence or that produces a health hazard. of conserving soil and soil resources and preventing and controlling soil erosion.”Attorney General may commence a civil enforcement action for “Any management guidelines developed by watershed management authoritiesdamages for pollution of the waters of the State. Enforcement [a special form of authority within some soil and water conservation districts] toincludes orders, injunctions, civil actions of damages for pollution protect forested watersheds shall follow the best management practices established(recover reasonable costs to prevent, minimize, or clean up any by the Forestry Commission.” Enforcement of district land use regulations is by

damage), costs of restocking of fish killed, civil penalties of $100 to injunction ordered by circuit courts or by districts performing needed corrections$25,000 per day, and criminal penalties for willful violation or and subsequent recovery of expenses.grossly negligent violations.

Alaska Water pollution control law prohibits persons from “pollut[ing] or Commissioner of Natural Resources may issue nonpoint source pollution regulaadd[ing] to the pollution of the air, land, subsurface land, or water of tions subject to Department of Environmental Conservation approval. On State,

the State.” The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation municipal, and private forestland, State law provides that “environmentally sensi-(DEC) has broad authority to adopt pollution standards and “to tive areas” shall be recognized “in the development of regulations and best managedetermine what qualities and properties of water indicate a polluted ment practices that are designed to implement nonpoint source pollution control

condition . . .” If an activity presents “an imminent or present danger” measures.” Before beginning forestry operations on private or State public forestto the people of the State or would result in or be likely to result in land, the operator must submit to the Director of the State Division of Forestry a“irreversible or irreparable damage” to the environment, the DEC may “detailed plan of operations.” Unless a stop-work order is issued or the agency

issue an emergency abatement order without a hearing. Superior court extends the review period, the operator may commence work, at the latest, 30 days

may also enjoin violations of statutes, regulations, orders, or permits after submission of the plan. The plan must be renewed annually. Director mayand impose sanctions including civil penalties of between $500 and issue orders to cease violations of plan or to repair any resulting damage. Violation

$10,000 for the initial violation and not more than $5,000 for each of statute, regulation, directive, or stop-work order can result in a maximum civilsubsequent day of the violation. If a violation occurs with criminal fine of $10,000, or, if criminal negligence is found, charges of a misdemeanor.negligence, it is considered a misdemeanor. Repairs may proceed with the violator liable for their cost.

Arizona Water pollution law authorizes development of programs for nonpoint State law does not appear to contain enforcement requirements specifically focused

source discharges, including development of enforceable mechanisms. on nonpoint source water pollution from forestry activities.However, the Department of Environmental Quality is required toadopt a “program to control nonpoint source discharges of anypollutant or combination of pollutants into navigable waters.” Thus,enforceable mechanisms could be created by regulation.

continued

Appendix B


Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, andrequirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawArkansas Water pollution control law establishes a general discharge prohibition State law does not appear to contain enforcement requirements specifically focused

that may be used to take enforcement action against nonpoint source on nonpoint source water pollution from forestry activities. However, there is adischarges, namely unlawful to “cause pollution . . . of any of the restriction on tree-cutting near river beds, namely “it is unlawful to remove anywaters of this State,” or to “place or cause to be placed any sewage, trees growing below the normal high watermark on any river or stream which hasindustrial waste, or other wastes in a location where it is likely to cause been designated as a navigable river or stream.” Violators are subject to a fine of not

pollution of any waters of this State.” Pollution and Ecology less than $10.00 and not more than $1,000.Commission is the responsible enforcement agency and is authorizedto conduct investigations and administrative proceedings, and institutecivil enforcement actions in the proper court. Administrative penaltiesmay be no greater than $10,000 per day of violation; civil actions mayresult in penalties not over $10,000 per day of violation, an order toenjoin violations and/or compel compliance, an order for remedialmeasures, and recovery of all costs, expenses, and damages. Violationsmay also be criminal misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment fornot more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $25,000, or both.A purposeful, knowing, or reckless violation adversely affectinghuman health or the environment is a felony, punishable byimprisonment.

California Water pollution control law (Porter-Cologne Act) establishes enforce- State’s forest practices law addresses nonpoint-source pollution in the context of

able permitting provisions and empowers regional water quality con- forestry practices and timber harvesting activities. Law divides the State into threetrol boards to order the abatement of nonpoint-source discharges. districts (coast forest, northern forest, southern forest) with distinct rules establishedTimber harvesting operations conducted under the State’s forest prac- by the State Board of Forestry. Rules must “protect the soil, air, fish, and wildlife,tices act are exempt from the waste discharge requirements if the law’s and water resources, including, but not limited to, streams, lakes, and estuaries,” andrequirements are certified as best management practices by the U.S. must include measures for “soil erosion control, for site preparation that involvesEnvironmental Protection Agency. Enforcement of pollution control disturbance of soil or burning of vegetation following timber harvesting activities . . . ,

law is by order, injunction, or remedial action with cost recovery. for water quality and watershed control, for flood control . . . [etc.].” Rules are

Other sections of the law provide for civil penalties, injunctions, implemented through requirements for licensing of foresters and for filing andmisdemeanor prosecutions, and administrative orders. approval of timber harvest plans; “. . . no person shall conduct timber operations

unless a timber harvesting plan prepared by a registered professional forester hasbeen submitted for such operations to the Department of Forestry.” Law providesfor public comments and review of proposed plans by other agencies. Reports ofcompletion of work must be filed within 1 month after completion of the activitydescribed in the plan, and operations must be inspected within 6 months. Enforcement measures include license actions, misdemeanor prosecutions (with fines ofnot more than $1,000 per day or imprisonment for more than 6 months), civilinjunction actions, and departmental corrective actions with cost recoveries.Although local government regulation of forestry is largely preempted, theCalifornia Tahoe Regional Planning Agency may adopt rules that are stricter thanthose promulgated by the Board of Forestry.

continued
Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, and

requirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawColorado Water pollution control law establishes a general policy declaration Board of Agriculture has the power and duty “to foster and promote the control of

favoring the prevention of discharge of untreated pollutants. However, soil erosion on . . . forestlands.” State law does not appear to specify enforcementthe law does not have a general enforceable prohibition that directly requirements related to nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.applies to nonpoint sources. Instead, the law confers authority on theWater Quality Control Commission to adopt regulations which mayinclude nonpoint-source regulations. The law specifically requires theuse of nonregulatory mechanisms before regulatory approaches maybe used.

Connecticut Water pollution control law makes it a violation to discharge any sub- State forestry law requires any person engaged in commercial forest practices to

stance to the waters of the State without a permit, namely “. . . no obtain and maintain a State certificate in one of three categories, namely forester,person or municipality shall initiate, create, originate, or maintain any supervising forest products harvester, and forest products harvester. Certifieddischarge of water, substance or material into the waters of the State foresters, supervisors, and harvesters are required to file annual reports of theirwithout a permit for such discharge issued by the Commissioner of activities and continuing education. The certification process provides a basis forEnvironmental Protection.” “Discharge” means “the emission of any assuring that forest practices are conducted in accordance with forest practice rules

water, substance or material into the waters of the State, whether or addressing nonpoint-source water pollution. State law authorizes the Commissionernot such substance causes pollution.” In such a context, discharge is of Environmental Protection to adopt regulations “governing the conduct of forestnot limited to point sources. In setting standards for permits, the practices including, but not limited to, the harvest of commercial forest products . . .

Commissioner must consider “best management practices,” namely such regulations shall provide for a comprehensive statewide system of forest pracpractices that reduce the discharge of waste into the waters of the State tices regulations which will . . . afford protection to and improvement of air and waterand that have been determined to be acceptable based on technical, quality . . .” The law also authorizes municipalities to regulate forest practices in a

economic, and institutional feasibility. Enforcement authorities include manner consistent with the State law. Municipal regulations must be approved byorders prohibiting or abating pollution and orders to correct potential the Commissioner. Enforcement tools include civil penalties of up to $5,000 persources of pollution. Civil penalties are available up to $25,000 per day. day per offense, compliance orders, injunctions, and denial, suspension, orCriminal actions may be brought for willful violations with a sanction revocation of a certificate.

of up to $25,000 per day and/or 1 year of imprisonment.

Delaware Water pollution control law requires that “. . . no person shall, without State’s forestry administrator “shall provide for the protection of the waters of the

first having obtained a permit from the Department of Natural Resources State from pollution by sediment deposits resulting from silvicultural activities.” A

and Environmental Control, undertake any activity that may cause or special order may be issued by the administrator if it is determined that an owner orcontribute to discharge of a pollutant into any surface or groundwater . . .” operator is conducting any silvicultural activity in a manner that is causing or is

The adopted permitting regulations are aimed at point sources, but the likely to cause alteration of physical, chemical, or biological properties of any State

State also can use this statutory authority to deal with nonpoint-source water, resulting from sediment deposition and presenting an imminent and substanpollution events. Numerous nonpoint activities do not require a permit tial danger to public health, safety, or welfare, or recreational, commercial, industrial,

(for example, activities involving drainage ditches; uncontaminated agricultural or other reasonable uses. The order may direct the owner or operator

stormwater discharges; application of fertilizer; plowing or cultivating “to cease immediately all or part of the silvicultural activities on the site and tofor agricultural or horticultural purposes; irrigation; movement of earth implement specified corrective measures within a stated period of time.” Specialfor building excavations). Enforcement mechanisms include civil orders are issued after notice and hearing and are effective not less than 5 days afterpenalties, orders, and injunctions. service, except for emergency special orders which may be issued immediately.

Failure to comply can lead to civil penalties of $200 to $2,000 per violation per day,although intentional and knowing violations of orders are subject to fines of $500to $10,000 per violation per day.

continued


Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, andrequirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawFlorida Water pollution control law administered by the Department of Environ- State relies on voluntary best management practices; enforcement, if necessary, is

mental Protection (DEP) prohibits any person “. . . to cause water pollu- under the State’s water pollution discharge laws. Where applicable, personstion so as to harm or injure human health or welfare, animal, plant, or engaging in forest harvest operations must file a “notice of a general permit” withaquatic life or property.” Also a violation of State law is failure to obtain a water management district.a permit required by law, rule, or regulation adopted to prevent such pollution. Additional and separate State law provides water pollution preventionenforcement authority for Florida’s five water management districts. DEPenforcement powers include civil actions for damages; actions for civilpenalties up to $10,000 per day; administrative actions for damages; andadministrative orders for abatement or other corrective action, subject toadministrative hearings. The law also provides for injunctions and forcriminal prosecution for violations committed with intent.

Georgia Water pollution control law authorizes a permit program to control non- State forestry laws do not appear to contain enforceable provisions relating directly

point sources that may impair water quality. Specifically, law requires to nonpoint-source pollution. However, State does require registration of profesa permit for anyone seeking to “erect or modify facilities or commence sional foresters, with continuing education and relicensing. Forest practices for hire

or alter an operation of any type which will result in the discharge of must be conducted by a professional forester. Enforcement of licensing requirementspollutants from a nonpoint source into the waters of the State, which includes injunction, license revocation, and misdemeanor prosecution.

will render or is likely to render such waters harmful to the public . . .”Permits are required only if the State’s Environmental Protection Division“has issued one to the same person for a point source discharge.” Injunctive relief and civil penalties of up to $50,000 per day are provided for, asare criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 and/or imprisonment.

Hawaii Water pollution control law includes some provisions that may be used State law does not appear to contain enforcement requirements specifically focused

to take enforcement action against nonpoint source discharges that are on nonpoint source water pollution from forestry activities.not permitted or that result in water quality violations. Administrative andcivil (up to $10,000 for each offense) penalties are authorized. Criminalsanctions are more stringent if the violation was “knowing” rather than“negligent.”

continued
Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, and

requirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawIdaho Water pollution control law provides that “no person shall conduct a new State forestry law requires the Forest Board to “develop methods for controlling

or substantially modify an existing nonpoint-source activity that can watershed impacts resulting from cumulative effects” of forest practices. Under thereasonably be expected to lower the water quality of an outstanding Idaho Forestry Act, best management practices are defined as practices that the

resource, except where the nonpoint source activities are temporary or Forest Board determines to be the “most effective and practicable means ofshort-term and do not alter the essential character of a stream segment.” preventing or reducing the amount of nonpoint pollution generated by forestPrior agency approval is required to conduct any new nonpoint-source practices,” and the rules under the act establish site-specific BMPs for streamactivities affecting such waters. Where total maximum daily loads are segments of concern. If implementation of BMPs is insufficient to protect benerequired, the State must develop “pollution control strategies for both ficial uses, the forest activity may be deemed “an imminent or substantial threat.”point sources and nonpoint sources for reducing those sources of pollution.” Operators are required to post a notice of intent to engage in forestry practices;

If a person fails to obtain new nonpoint-source approval in those few a bond is required where an operator has failed to apply BMPs or willfully causedinstances where it is required (outstanding resource waters), or fails to degradation of water resources. Rules are enforced through issuance of notices ofimplement best management practices and violations of water quality violation and cease and repair orders. Relevant sanctions include suits for reparastandards result, the State may institute a civil action. Nonpoint-source tions, attachment of liens, bond forfeiture, and injunctive relief. The Right to

activities not conducted according to BMPs may be subject to compliance Conduct Forest Practices Act limits the circumstances under which forest practices

schedules, administrative and civil relief including injunctive relief. may be deemed a nuisance.

Illinois Water pollution control law provides that “No person shall cause or State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

threaten or allow the discharge of any contaminants that would cause or nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.tend to cause water pollution, or that would violate regulations or standards . . .” Enforcement occurs by injunction, mandamus, or other appropriate remedy and/or civil penalties. Civil penalties of a maximum of$50,000 for the violation and $10,000 for each continuing day may beassessed.

Indiana Water pollution control law provides that “A person may not: (1) throw, State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

run, drain, or otherwise dispose into any of the streams or waters of nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.Indiana; or (2) cause, permit, or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowedto seep, or otherwise disposed into any waters; any organic or inorganicmatter that causes or contributes to a polluted condition of any waters,as determined by rule . . .” Water Pollution Control Board can establishrequirements for permits “to control or limit the discharge of contaminants into State waters.” While this is not limited to point sources, thecurrent regulations cover permitting for point sources and do not requirepermits for “any introduction of pollutants from nonpoint-source agricultural and silvicultural activities.” Laws are enforced by administrativeorder, civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day, and injunctions. Failureto comply with an order is a misdemeanor.

continued


Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, andrequirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawIowa Water pollution control law contains a general prohibition against unper- State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

mitted discharges of pollutants (defined as “wastes”) into waters, which nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.may be used to reach some types of nonpoint-source discharges. Enforcement is through cease and desist orders, civil penalties up to $5,000 perday, injunctions, and criminal (serious or aggravated misdemeanor)prosecution. Cities and counties are authorized to assess a civil penaltyequal in amount to the penalty assessed by the State.

Kansas Water pollution control law provides that “No person shall place or permit State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

to be placed or discharge or permit to flow into any of the waters of the nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.State any pollutants, except pursuant to a permit.” Enforcement of theseprovisions is by corrective action orders, civil penalties of up to $10,000,and criminal prosecutions.

Kentucky Water pollution control law may be enforced against nonpoint-source State Forest Conservation Act (1998) establishes enforceable mechanisms applidischarges that pollute State waters in violation of applicable standards cable to commercial timber harvesting. No person shall conduct commercial timber

or regulations: “No person shall, directly or indirectly, throw, drain, run harvesting operations unless a certified “master logger” is on site who hasor otherwise discharge into any of the waters of the Commonwealth . . . completed certain educational requirements (including continuing education everyany pollutant in contravention of the standards adopted by . . . rule, 3 years). Timber harvesting operations must use appropriate best managementregulation, permit or order or any provision of the statute.” The Natural practices (BMPs) which are defined by the State’s Division of Forestry, approved

Resources and Environmental Protection Office or the Attorney General by the Agriculture Water Quality Authority, and reviewed by the Forestry Bestmay institute an action to recover penalties or bring an action seeking Management Practices Board. If a logger or operator fails to use appropriate BMPsan injunction. Violators are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed or is causing water pollution, a written warning is issued and/or the logger or operator$25,000 per day for each violation. Knowing violations are a felony must attend a conference with district foresters. Continued failure to comply canpunishable by a fine not to exceed $25,000, or imprisonment of 1 to result in issuances of a special order mandating immediate implementation of the

5 years, or both. corrective measures or cessation of all or a portion of the timber harvesting operation. Subsequent failure to discontinue noncompliance may result in logger or

operator being deemed a “bad actor” and subjected to civil penalties of up to$1,000. Agriculture Water Quality Act also establishes enforceable BMPs that applyto farm operations of 10 or more acres, including silviculture conducted on suchoperations.

Louisiana Water pollution control law prohibits any person from conducting an State forestry law provides that any person who cuts standing cypress trees on water

activity “which results in the discharge of any substance into the waters bottoms owned by the State of Louisiana is subject to a fine (up to $5,000) and/orof the State without the appropriate permit, variance, or license.” The law imprisonment (up to 6 months). Furthermore, the State’s Natural and Scenic Riversis not applicable to “unintentional nonpoint-source discharge resulting Act prohibits commercial harvesting of timber within 100 feet of low-water marks,from agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural products.” Regulations with exceptions including selective harvesting of trees, cutting to control disease oralso exclude from the permitting requirements “introduction of pollu- insects, and harvesting timber for personal use by the person owning the property.tants from nonpoint sources resulting from normal agricultural and Civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day for each violation can be imposed.

silvicultural activities.”

continued
Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, and

requirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawMaine Water pollution control law provides that “No person may directly or State forestry law authorizes rules to protect water quality. Management plans are

indirectly discharge or cause to be discharged any pollutant without first required for clearcuts in excess of 50 acres. Landowners are required to notify theobtaining a license” from the appropriate State agency, a prohibition that State’s forestry agency prior to harvesting timber and to file reports on timber sales.includes nonpoint-source discharges. If discharge, emission, or deposit of Enforcement includes civil forfeitures of $1,000 per violation of performance stanany materials into any waters, air, or land constitutes a substantial and dards. Violation of notice requirements results in a civil forfeiture of $50 for

immediate danger to the health, safety, or general welfare, the governing harvests of 50 cords or less and $1,000 for larger harvests or for failure to submitState agency shall request the Attorney General to initiate immediate other reports. For unorganized portions of the State, the Land Use Regulationinjunction proceedings to prevent such discharge. Additional enforcement Commission establishes forest practice regulations, including timber harvesting

mechanisms include administrative consent orders, civil injunctive standards for slash disposal, clearcut size and location, retention of buffer strips,

remedies, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day. Criminal viola- and a general requirement to “reasonably avoid sedimentation of surface waters.”tions can result in a fine of not less than $100 and not more than The State’s shoreland zone law protects areas within 250 feet of the normal high-

$25,000 per day of violation. water line of any great pond, river, or saltwater body, within 250 feet of a coastal

wetland or the upland edge of a freshwater wetland, and within 75 feet of thehighwater line of a stream. Statute limits timber harvesting in the protected areas toselective cutting of no more than 40 percent of trees 4 inches or more in diameter inany 10-year period, prohibits timber harvests within 75-foot areas abutting greatpond shorelands zoned for resource protection, and requires reforestation within 2growing seasons of any harvest beyond the 75-foot buffer.

Maryland Water pollution control law provides that “a person may not discharge any State forestry law requires the Department of Natural Resources “to administer

pollutant into the waters of this State.” To enforce this requirement the forest conservation practices on privately owned forestland and manage publiclyDepartment of the Environment may require nonpoint-source dischargers owned forestlands,” and authorizes the promulgation and enforcement of rules andto obtain permits under certain circumstances. Enforcement of permits is regulations specifying forest practice standards, which are to be enforced by districtby corrective action orders, injunctions, civil penalties not exceeding forestry boards. State law also provides for licensing of professional foresters.$10,000 per day (judicially) or $1,000 per day (administratively), or Under the State’s Nontidal Wetlands program, forestry activities are required to havecriminal prosecution. Furthermore, on land managed under an agricultural an erosion and sediment control plan, except that various forestry practices aresoil conservation and water quality plan approved by the local soil con- exempted from the planning requirement. Under the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areaservation district, “it is unlawful for any person to add, introduce, leak, Protection Program, “all harvesting of timber in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areaspill, or otherwise emit soil or sediment into waters of the State or to place shall be in accordance with plans approved by the district forestry board.”soil or sediment in a condition or location where it is likely to be washedinto waters of the State by runoff of precipitation.” Enforcement is byinjunctive relief or corrective action orders. Civil penalties up to $25,000per day or criminal penalties up to $50,000 and/or 1 year imprisonmentmay be imposed.

continued
	

Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, andrequirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawMassachusetts Water pollution control law prohibits any person from “. . . discharging State forestry law (Forest Cutting Practices Act) requires preparation of minimum

any pollutant into waters of the commonwealth, except in conformity forest cutting practices and guidelines (best management practices). Landownerswith a permit . . . or shall be punished by a fine . . . or by imprisonment must give prior notice to the appropriate agency and to neighboring property owners

. . . or shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day of of intent to harvest. The notice must include a proposed cutting plan. Not coveredsuch violation.” However, regulations issued pursuant to the law exempt by the law is cutting for the owner’s own use, cutting of less than 25,000 board feetfrom permit requirements “any introduction of pollutants from non-point or 50 cords, or land-clearing activities. Enforcement is by stop-work order and finesource agricultural and silvicultural activities, including runoff from of up to $100 per acre. Harvesting timber for hire or profit requires a license and

orchards, cultivated crops, pastures, range lands, and forestlands.” requires licensees to demonstrate familiarity with the State’s laws on forestry andEnforcement mechanisms, in addition to civil penalties, include orders timber harvesting; enforcement is by fine and injunction. State law also prohibits theand injunctive relief. placement of slash within 25 feet of any continuously flowing stream, or any pond,

river, or water supply. Forestry operations in wetlands are subject to additionalregulations and to best management practice requirements.

Michigan Water pollution control laws prohibit the direct or indirect discharge into State forestry law authorizes forest improvement districts wherein minimum forest

the waters of the State any substance that is or may become injurious to practice standards are to be applied. Persons who intend to conduct forestry operapublic health, safety, or welfare; to domestic, commercial, industrial, agri- tions must submit a forest management plan notifying the district board of intent to

cultural, recreational uses; to the value or utility of riparian lands; or to comply with the forest practice standards. The board can issue a notice of violation

livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, aquatic life, or plants. The Department if a forest practice rule is violated and may order the operator to make “reasonable

of Environmental Quality may promulgate rules and issue orders restrict- efforts to repair the damage or correct the unsatisfactory condition.” If the operator

ing the polluting content of any waste material or polluting substance dis- fails to comply, the board may take action and then file a lien to recover the costs of

charged or sought to be discharged into any waters of the State. The State the action. State’s Inland Lakes and Streams law requires permits for projects that

may bring civil actions or criminal prosecutions in court, revoke a permit, affect lakes and streams (for example, stream crossings). Enforcement is by civilissue an order of abatement, or refer cases to the Attorney General. action with fines up to $10,000 per day.

Sanctions include civil fines of not less than $2,500 and not more than$25,000 per day, and terms of imprisonment and other penalties forknowing violations.

Minnesota Water pollution control law obligates every person to notify the State of State forestry laws have few provisions regulating private forestry operations with

the discharge of any substance or material that may cause pollution of the respect to nonpoint-source water pollution, although the Sustainable Forestwaters and the discharger to take all reasonable actions to minimize or Resources Act of 1995 provides for voluntary forest practice guidelines. Departabate the pollution caused. Rules state that no sewage, industrial waste, or ment of Natural Resources is prohibited from selling State forestland that bordersother wastes shall be discharged from either a point or nonpoint source on or is adjacent to meandered lakes or public waters and water courses, and if theinto the waters of the State in such quantity or in such a manner as to Department harvests these State lands, it must “reserve the timber and impose othercause water pollution. Enforcement accomplished by criminal prosecu- conditions deemed necessary to protect watersheds, wildlife habitat, shorelines, andtion, civil penalties, injunction, and other actions to compel performance. scenic features.” Clear cutting is prohibited where “soil, slope or other watershed conditions are fragile” and within certain distances of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers.

Mississippi Water pollution control law prohibits any person “. . . to cause pollution Forest Harvesting Law requires that certain numbers of trees be left on each acre for

of any waters of the State or to place or cause to be placed any wastes in a growing stock and/or seed trees after harvest. Law does not apply to land clearing

location where they are likely to cause pollution; and to discharge any for crop production, pasture, building sites, or roads, or to noncommercial cutting by

wastes into any waters of the State which reduce the quality of such owners for their own use. Enforceable by injunction or by misdemeanor or prosecuwaters below established water quality standards.” Enforcement is by tion with a fine of $25-$50 per working unit of 40 acres or less.administrative orders, civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day, injunction,or misdemeanor prosecution. Regulations provide that no permit may berequired for nonpoint agriculture and silviculture pollution.

continued

Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, and

requirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawMissouri Water pollution law provides that it is “unlawful for any person to cause State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

pollution of any waters of the State or to discharge any water contaminants nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.into any waters of the State which reduce the quality of such waters belowestablished water quality standards.” Enforcement is through administrativepenalties up to $10,000 per day, civil penalties up to $10,000 per day, andcriminal prosecution.

Montana Water pollution control law makes it unlawful to cause pollution of any State forestry law requires creation of streamside management zones for forest

State waters or to place or cause to be placed any wastes where they will streams (strip at least 50 feet wide) within which certain activities are prohibited,cause pollution of any State waters. However, exempt from the prohibi- including: broadcast burning; off-road vehicle operation; clearcutting; road contion is “any placement of materials that is authorized by a permit issued struction (unless necessary for stream crossing); handling, storage, application, orby any State or Federal agency . . . if the agency’s permitting authority disposal of hazardous substances; and deposit of slash in water bodies. Departmentincludes provisions for review of the placement of materials to ensure of Natural Resources and Conservation has inspection authority on Federal, State,that it will not cause pollution of state waters.” Statute also makes it and private land to ensure compliance with the rules for streamside managementunlawful to “cause degradation of State waters without authorization” zones and may issue civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day, as well as rehabilitationand establishes a detailed nondegradation policy for State waters. orders. State’s forest practice law requires use of best management practices andDepartment of Environmental Quality has general inspection and penalty requires that notice be given prior to commencement of any forestry practices.authority for violations of the water quality code, including issuance of Consultation with landowner or operator may result, the intent of which is tospecific compliance orders, cleanup orders, and administrative penalties provide information and advice.of up to $10,000 per violation per day. Civil actions include temporaryand permanent injunctions, while judicial remedies include civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day and, for willful or negligent violations ofthe discharge prohibition, criminal fines of up to $25,000 per day, orimprisonment of up to 1 year, or both. Criminal penalties may bedoubled for repeat violations.

Nebraska Water pollution law makes it unlawful to “cause pollution of any waters State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

of the State or to place or cause to be placed any wastes in a location nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities. However, the State’s

where they are likely to cause pollution” of State waters. Enforcement is Erosion and Sediment Control Act may be applicable to forestry activities.through corrective action orders, injunctions, civil penalties up to $10,000per day, and criminal (felony and misdemeanor) prosecution. State mayrecover damages for restocking the waters with fish or replenishing wildlife.

Nevada Water pollution control law authorizes prescriptions for “diffuse sources” State forestry law requires a permit for logging operations and for conversion of

(equivalent to nonpoint sources) of water pollutants that are “significantly timberland to any use other than the growing of timber. All logging permits requirecausing or adding to water pollution in violation of a water quality stan- the use of best management practices to prevent, eliminate, or reduce water pollutiondard.” Special regulations exist to protect the Lake Tahoe watershed. from diffuse sources. Violation of permit conditions can result in administrativeIt is illegal to discharge waste within 100 feet of Lake Tahoe or a stream revocation of permit and/or charge of a misdemeanor violation punishable with aor other water supply in the watershed. fine (up to $1,000) and/or imprisonment (6 months or less). Statute prohibits

“felling of trees, skidding, rigging or construction of roads within 200 feet of awaterbody” or tractor logging on slopes of 30 percent or more. Variances may begranted for both prohibitions. Tractor skid trails, landings, logging truck roads andfirebreaks to be located, constructed, used, and left so as to not “appreciablydiminish water quality.”

continued


Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, andrequirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawNew Hampshire Water pollution control law does not expressly focus on nonpoint sources State forestry law authorizes the Department of Resources and Economic Developyet requires that “. . . after adoption of a given classification for a stream, ment to develop and implement enforceable provisions regarding timber harvesting

lake, pond, tidal water, or section of such water, it shall be unlawful for on private and public lands. Law requires filing of a notice of intent to cut, crossany person or persons to dispose of any sewage, industrial, or other wastes, compliance with the State’s wetlands permitting program, and compliance with the

in such a manner as will lower the quality of these waters . . .” The State’s Alteration of Terrain Program. Harvesting is prohibited within specifiedDepartment may issue cease-and-desist orders, seek injunctive relief in distances of great ponds, and standing bodies of water, and within 50 feet of anycourts, request civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day, or impose admin- perennial stream. Law also prohibits disposal of slash and mill residue in anyistrative penalties of not more than $2,000 per offense. Willful or negli- perennial stream or standing body of water. Cease-and-desist orders can be issuedgent violations, or knowing failure to obey a lawful order subjects the against any timber operation in violation of the law; violations may be enjoined byviolator to a fine of up to $25,000 per day and/or imprisonment for up superior court. Administrative fines may also be assessed for any offense, not toto 6 months. exceed $2,000 per violation. The Alteration of Terrain Program requires loggers to

notify of intent to cut and obligates them to abide by appropriate best managementpractices to include all State laws pertaining to logging operations. State’sComprehensive Shoreland Protection law is also partly applicable to forestryactivities as it requires natural woodland buffers near shorelands.

New Jersey Water pollution control law prohibits the discharge of any pollutant except State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

as authorized by statute or under a permit. Enforcement provisions nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.include compliance orders, injunctive relief, civil penalties of not morethan $50,000 for each violation, and criminal sanctions if there is aknowing or reckless violation that causes a significant adverse environmental effect.

New Mexico Water pollution control law does not contain enforceable provisions State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

directly applicable to nonpoint-source discharges. However, law does nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities. However, the State’s forestauthorize the Water Quality Control Commission to promulgate and practices law requires permits and inspections for timber harvesting beyond specified

publish regulations to prevent or abate water pollution in the State and to specified minimum timber volumes and harvest areas. New Mexico counties mayrequire permits. Law provides for administrative orders and penalties up also enact enforceable ordinances addressing harvest practices (Rio Arriba Countyto $25,000 per day. has a timber harvest permit process that incorporates as mandatory conditions the

State’s voluntary forest practice guidelines).

New York Water pollution law declares State policy to maintain reasonable standards State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

of water purity “and to that end require the use of all known available nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.and reasonable methods to prevent and control the pollution of the watersof the State.” Enforcement is by administrative order, injunction, a civilpenalty of up to $25,000 per day, or criminal prosecution (for willfulviolations).

continued
Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, and

requirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawNorth Carolina Water pollution law specifies (absent a permit or special order) that no Sedimentation Pollution Control Act regulates certain kinds of land-disturbing

person shall cause or permit any waste, directly or indirectly, to be dis- activity that causes erosion and sedimentation and requires the Department ofcharged to or in any manner intermixed with the waters of the State in Environment, Health and Natural Resources to adopt “Forest Practice Guidelines

violation of the water quality standards applicable to assigned classifi- Related to Water Quality” (best management practices for forest activity). Thecations. Violators of the law may be assessed civil penalties of up to guidelines are presented in the North Carolina Administrative Code as well as in a$10,000 per violation per day, misdemeanor criminal fines of up to Forestry Practices Manual issued by the Division of Forest Resources. Forest

$15,000 per violation per day, or felony criminal fines of up to $250,000 activities conducted in accordance with these guidelines are exempt from the otherper violation per day; they also are subject to injunctive relief. provisions of the act.

North Dakota Water pollution law makes it unlawful “to cause pollution of any waters State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

of the State or to place or cause to be placed any wastes in a location nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.where they are likely to cause pollution of the waters of the State.” Thisprovision is not restricted to point sources. State law also requires apermit for a range of activities that would cause a “discharge” or “wouldotherwise alter the physical, chemical, or biological properties of anywaters of the State in any manner not already lawfully authorized.”Enforcement actions include emergency orders, judicial injunctions,fines of up to $50,000, and, for willful violations, jail terms of 1 or 2years. Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day are also available forviolations without willful intent.

Ohio Water pollution law applies to all waters of the State. However, pollution Law specifically provides for control of sediment and related runoff from agricultural

resulting from farming, silvicultural, or earthmoving activities is exempted. and silvicultural activities by directing the Division of Soil and Water Conservation,

Local units of government (such as Soil and Water Conservation Districts) Department of Natural Resources, (with the approval of the Soil and Water Conserhave inherent powers to abate pollution from such sources if it is deter- vation Commission) to adopt rules establishing “technically feasible and economimined to constitute a nuisance. cally reasonable standards to achieve a level of management and conservation

practices in farming or silvicultural operations that will abate wind or water erosionof the soil or abate the degradation of the waters of the State by animal waste or bysoil sediment including substances attached thereto.” The law further empowers theDivision to “establish procedures for . . . enforcement of rules for agricultural andsilviculture pollution abatement.” The law is implemented at the farm and forestlevel by local soil and water conservation districts.

Oklahoma Water pollution law makes it “unlawful for any person to cause pollution State Board of Agriculture “shall administer silviculture best management practices

of any waters of the State or to place or cause to be placed any wastes in a in cooperation with forestry land users under the provisions of State and Federallocation where they are likely to cause pollution of any air, land or waters” water pollution laws, which include the process to identify silviculturally-related

and declares any such action to be a public nuisance. Regulations expressly nonpoint sources of pollution as defined by the Oklahoma Environmental Qualityconstrue the law to include nonpoint sources. For violations, the Depart- Code and setting forth procedures and methods to control to the extent feasiblement of Environmental Quality may seek an injunction, a civil penalty of such sources.” The statute does not expressly set out enforcement authority for bestup to $10,000 per violation, and/or misdemeanor criminal penalties of management practices.$200 to $10,000, and/or imprisonment for up to 6 months. However, thelaw divests the Department of jurisdiction over agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint sources, instead assigning jurisdiction to the Department ofAgriculture for agricultural discharges and to the Conservation Commission for erosion control. Neither of these entities appears to have enforcement authorities applicable to nonpoint-source discharges.

continued


Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, andrequirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawOregon Water pollution control law prohibits persons from polluting “any waters State’s Forest Practices Act requires that forest operations be conducted in accordof the State,” from placing waste where it is “likely to escape or be ance with rules and standards “relating to air and water pollution control.” State

carried into the waters of the State by any means,” and from discharging Forestry Board establishes best management practices (BMPs) “to insure that nonwastes into water if the discharge reduces water quality “below the stan- point source discharges of pollutants resulting from forest operations do not impairdards established by rule for such waters.” The general prohibition is not the achievement and maintenance of water quality standards.” Operators are required

expressly limited to point sources; it is interpreted to address nonpoint- to comply with BMPs, unless they can demonstrate that alternative practices yieldsource discharges. Violations of the general prohibition provision are better results. Forestry Board is authorized to require a written plan for forestrydeemed a public nuisance. operations if operations are within 100 feet of a stream used by fish or for domestic

use. Also, operators must give written notice of chemical applications to the ForestryBoard which in turn must notify persons that are within 10 miles of the applicationand hold downstream surface water rights. Where forest operators are in compliancewith the Board’s BMPs, then the operations are not considered in violation of anywater quality standards. Also, forestry operations are immune from private nuisanceactions if they are in compliance with the act and with BMPs. Enforcement isthrough inspection, notice of violation, issuance of administrative orders (ceaseand-desist or reparation orders), and general criminal and civil penalties, includingpotential civil sanctions of up to $5,000 per violation.

Pennsylvania Water pollution law authorizes State to “enforce reasonable orders and State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

regulations for the protection of any source of water for present or future nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities. However, with respect tosupply to the public, and prohibiting the pollution of any such source of erosion and sediment related pollutants, forest harvesting activities involving earthwater rendering the same inimical or injurious to the public health or moving must comply with the regulatory program authorized by the Clean Streams

objectionable for public water supply purposes.” Violation of law is a Law.summary offense punishable by a fine of not less than $100 nor morethan $10,000 for each offense. Willful or negligent violations are misdemeanors punishable by a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than$25,000 for each separate offense and/or imprisonment in the county jailfor a period of not more than 1 year. Civil penalties may be assessed notto exceed $10,000 per day per violation. State may also issue orders orseek injunctive relief.

Rhode Island Water pollution law makes it unlawful for any person to place any pollu- State forestry law requires, for the cutting of trees for commercial forest products,

tant in a location where it is likely to enter the waters of the State. registration with the Department of Environmental Management as a woods operator.

Enforcement is by notices of violation, compliance orders, injunctive Cutting without such registration is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $100 to

relief, criminal liability, and civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day. $500.

South Carolina Water pollution law makes it unlawful for any person, directly or indi- State forestry law does not specifically regulate nonpoint sources of water pollutants

rectly, to discharge pollutants into the waters of the State, except as in on private lands. However, the Erosion and Sediment Reduction Act requires thecompliance with a permit issued by the Department of Health and DHEC to promulgate regulations for erosion and sediment reduction and stormwater

Environmental Control (DHEC). Enforcement is by administrative management on land owned by the State, a State agency, a quasi-State agency, ororders, injunctive relief, civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day, and land under the management or control of such an entity. For forestland controlledcriminal penalties for willful or negligent violation of $500 to $25,000 by the State Forestry Commission, the commission must develop and implement aper day and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years. sediment reduction plan, doing so in consultation with the DHEC.

continued
Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, and

requirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawSouth Dakota Water pollution law prohibits discharges of waste that result in water State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

quality violations, and the placement of wastes in locations where they are nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.likely to cause water pollution. The State’s Water Management Board isrequired to promulgate water quality standards and to classify wateraccording to its beneficial uses. The standards must protect public health,use of waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquaticlife and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, andother legitimate uses. Persons violating rules are liable for a civil penaltynot to exceed $10,000 or for damages to the environment, or both.Criminal violations are misdemeanors subject to a fine not to exceed$10,000 and/or a sentence of up to 1 year imprisonment.

Tennessee Water pollution law (Water Quality Control Act of 1977) prohibits the State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

discharge of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes into waters, or a nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.location from which it is likely that the discharged substance will moveinto waters. However, the law does not apply to “any agricultural orforestry activity or the activities necessary to the conduct and operationsthereof or to any lands devoted to the production of any agricultural orforestry products, unless there is a point-source discharge from a discernible, confined, and discrete water conveyance.” Enforcement of the law isthrough corrective action orders, civil penalties up to $10,000 per day,criminal misdemeanor prosecution, and injunctions. Violators are alsosubject to action for damages.

Texas Water pollution law provides that no person may discharge sewage, muni- State Soil and Water Conservation Board and soil and water conservation districts

cipal waste, recreational waste, agricultural waste, or industrial waste are empowered to plan, implement, and manage programs for abating agricultural

into or adjacent to any water in the State. Exempted from this prohibition and silvicultural nonpoint-source pollution. Where silvicultural nonpoint sourcesare discharges authorized by permit, discharged in compliance with a are identified as important water quality problems, the Board can certify a programcertified water quality management plan as provided under the State for addressing the problem, using local soil and water conservation districts as the

agriculture code, and activities under the jurisdiction of the Department of key implementers of the plan. The Board adopts rules for the plans in complianceParks and Wildlife, General Land Office (coastal management), or the with State water quality standards.Railroad Commission of Texas. Enforcement is through administrativepenalties of up to $10,000 per day, civil penalties of between $50 and$10,000, and injunctions.

Utah Water pollution law makes it unlawful for any person to discharge a State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

pollutant into waters of the State or to cause pollution which consti- nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.tutes a menace to public health and welfare, is harmful to wildlife, fish,or aquatic life, or impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational,or other beneficial uses of water. Violations of these prohibitions aretreated as a public nuisance. If violations occur, the State’s Water QualityBoard may give written notice, may seek injunctive relief in a civil action,pursue civil penalties not to exceed $10,000, or, in the case of willful orgross negligence, seek fines not to exceed $25,000.

continued


Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, andrequirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawVermont Water pollution control law prohibits discharge of any waste, substance, State forestry law requires notice of intent to harvest when harvest involves more

or material into the waters of the State without a permit. For certain than 40 acres. State forestry agency must review the proposed harvest to determineclasses of waters, the State “shall not regulate accepted agricultural or compliance with silvicultural guidelines and forestry standards and requirementssilvicultural practices, as are defined by the commissioners of agriculture, with respect to water quality, wetlands, and riparian zones. Exemptions from noticefood and markets and forests, parks and recreation . . .” Law is enforceable are properties under a State-approved forest management plan. Violation of law or

by administrative orders, emergency orders, administrative penalties of rules may result in a penalty of up to $50,000 and up to $25,000 per day for a conup to $25,000 for a single violation or $10,000 per day (but not more tinuing violation. Municipal bylaws may not restrict “accepted silviculturalthan $100,000 total) for a continuing violation, civil enforcement, and practices.”criminal enforcement.

Virginia Water pollution law provides that except as otherwise permitted by law, State forestry law declares that if silvicultural activities are being conducted in a

it shall be unlawful for any person to place pollutants into State waters manner that causes or is likely to cause pollution, the State forester “. . . may advisewhich can substantially impair the lawful use or enjoyment of such waters the owner or operator of corrective measures needed to prevent or cease the polluand their environs by others. Violations are misdemeanors and punishable tion.” The State forester is also granted authority “. . . to issue special orders to any

by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 or by confinement in owner or operator . . . to cease immediately all or part of silvicultural activities on ajail for not more than 12 months or both such fine and imprisonment. Any site and to implement specified corrective measures within a stated period of time.”person whose property is damaged or whose property is threatened with Also authorized is the issuance of emergency orders (without advance notice ordamage may seek from the court an injunction enjoining any violation of hearing) if an “. . . owner or operator is conducting any silvicultural activity in athis law. manner which is causing or is likely to cause an alteration of the physical, chemical

or biological properties of any State waters resulting from sediment deposition . . .”A civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation per day may be assessed after theowner or operator has been given an opportunity for a hearing. Orders may beenforced by injunction.

Washington Water pollution law prohibits the discharge of any organic or inorganic State forestry law (Forest Practices Act) requires the State Forest Practices Board to

matter that shall cause or tend to cause water pollution and requires a promulgate regulations that establish minimum forest practices standards. Regulapermit for the disposal of solid or liquid waste material into waters of the tions determine which forest practices fall within which of four classes of practices,State. The State Department of Ecology enforces the law by bringing an ranging from Class I, requiring no notification, through Class II-IV, requiringaction, issuing orders or directives, or imposing penalties. Willful viola- notification and submission of an application for approval. Class IV forest practicestions are crimes punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprison- are considered to have “a potential for substantial impact on the environment andment for not more than 1 year. Civil violations incur penalties of up to therefore require an evaluation.” The State Departments of Ecology and Natural$10,000 per day per violation. Resources enforce the law. The attorney general also may engage in enforcement

actions, and a county may bring actions in superior court against the State departments, landowners, timber owners, and operators. Sanctions include civil penalties,collection of costs, or disapproval, for up to 1 year, of a forest practices application.

continued
Appendix table B.1—Provisions of major enforceable State laws to control nonpoint source water pollution, by State, water pollution law, and

requirements for forestry (2001) (continued)State Nonpoint-source water pollution control law Forestry nonpoint-source water pollution lawWest Virginia Water pollution law generally does not appear to provide for the regula- State forestry law requires a license for commercial timber harvest and purchase of

tion or prohibition of nonpoint-source discharges. timber or logs for resale, and certification of supervisors of logging services. If the

Division of Forestry notifies the Office of Water Resources (Division of Environmental Protection) that failure to use a particular best management practice iscausing or contributing, or has the potential to contribute, to soil erosion or waterpollution, the Division of Environmental Protection may issue a written complianceorder, issue immediate suspension of work orders, suspend licenses or certificatesfor 30 to 90 days for the second violation within 2 years, or revoke licenses orcertificates for third violations within 2 years. The Division may seek civil penaltiesof up to $2,500 for the first offense and $5,000 for subsequent offenses.

Wisconsin Water pollution law authorizes the Department of Natural Resources State forestry law provides for a tax incentive program that requires submission of a

(DNR) to issue general orders and adopt rules for preventing and abating forest management plan. Failure to file notice of intent to harvest can result in finespollution of the waters of the State. The DNR may issue orders for the of up to $1,000. Persons intentionally harvesting merchantable timber in violationabatement of nonpoint-source pollution which it has determined to be of the law are subject to forfeiture equal to 20 percent of the current value of thesignificant on a case-by-case basis. Violators of agency orders are subject timber harvested. Furthermore, all slash which falls into or is deposited in any laketo administrative penalties of up to $5,000 per day. or stream or on the land of an adjoining owner, must be removed immediately.

Violators are subject to fines of not more than $50; however, repeat offenders aresubject to higher fines and imprisonment.

Wyoming Water pollution law (Wyoming Environmental Quality Act) prohibits State law does not appear to contain enforcement provisions specifically focused on

“causing, threatening or allowing the discharge of any pollution or waste nonpoint-source water pollution from forestry activities.

into the waters of the State” or “altering the physical, chemical, radiological, biological or bacteriological properties of any waters of the State”unless authorized by permit. Enforcement measures include cease-anddesist orders, temporary and permanent injunctive relief, reparations fordamages, civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation per day, andcriminal penalties of up to $25,000 per violation per day and/orimprisonment of up to 1 year.

Sources: Adapted from Ellefson and others (1995); Environmental Law Institute (1997, 1998); National Conference of State Legislatures (2001); Wear and Greis (2002).


Information Review and Evaluation:

Economic Framework

	

The full text of Indicator 58 is as follows: Extent to which

the economic framework (economic policies and measures)

supports the conservation and sustainable management of

forests through investment and taxation policies and a

regulatory environment which recognize the long-term

nature of investments and permit the flow of capital in

and out of the forest sector in response to market signals,

nonmarket economic valuations, and public policy

decisions in order to meet long-term demands for forest

products and services (Montreal Process Working Group

2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

The sustainability of forests and the many benefits they

are capable of providing requires high levels of sustained

investment in forest management and protection. It is only

through such investment that the full range of products,

values, and services provided by forests can be ensured. If

investment capital is lacking in the forest sector, sustainable management and the associated economic, ecological,

and social benefits may not be obtained. Similarly, if

investment capital is prevented from leaving the forest

sector, inefficiencies can occur and over-exploitation of

forests is a possibility. Investment is affected by a number

of economy-wide factors, most notably product or service

prices, forestland productivity, and discount rate as affected

by risk (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee

2000, Montreal Process Working Group 2003).

Forest investment is often discouraged by certain inherent

characteristics of forests. For example, they typically grow

very slowly, and this results in substantial holding costs

and revenue uncertainty; they are at risk from insect and

disease infestations and natural disturbances (fire and wind)

that can seriously erode or wipe out the capital investment

in trees; and they have a very low degree of liquidity

(National Research Council 1998). Other investment

opportunities often provide greater return with less risk.

Understanding the economic framework within which

capital can readily flow in and out of the forest sector will

suggest the degree to which policies and programs support

adequate long-term investment that promotes sustainable

forestry (Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee

2000).

Information indicating economic capacity for investment

that promotes sustainability can be found in compilations

and descriptions of laws, policies, and programs that

encourage or discourage investment in, and management

of, private forests. Information about the use, efficiency,

and effectiveness of tax incentives or disincentives (such

as income tax and property tax) and fiscal incentives (such

as grants, cost-share assistance, and conservation easements) is relevant.

This review focuses on the nation’s policy and program

capacity to promote adequate private investment in forest

resources within existing economic frameworks (taxation

and fiscal incentives). Information about actual levels of

investment in the management, use, and protection of

forest resources is given only limited attention here. Regulatory programs that force private investments in forests

are not reviewed here; they are given extensive coverage

in the review of Indicator 57 (enforcement of laws, regulations, and guidelines). We acknowledge the importance

of legal and institutional capacity to encourage investment

in public forests, but an examination of information about

such capacity is beyond the scope of this review.

Concepts and principles that are to be identified and

addressed are suggested by the indicator. To guide this

review, brief definitions of three important concepts are:

forest investment—expenditure of funds to increase the

production of goods and services from forestland; tax

incentives—programs designed to alter the timing, type, or

amount of tax expected from private forestland or the

income produced from the property; and fiscal incentives—

financial payments to owners of private forestland for the

purpose of encouraging certain land uses or management

practices or both (Ellefson 1992, Klemperer 1996).

Conceptual Background

Forests provide a wide range of ecological, social, and

economic values. Nationally, they provide more than 16.3

billion cubic feet of wood fiber to support a forest products

industry that employs more than 1.3 million people, contributes in excess of $40 billion in wages per year, and

annually produces products valued at more than $200

billion (Congressional Information Service 2000). Forests

also provide important nonmarket outputs such as wildlife

habitat, clean water, recreational opportunities, and

aesthetic enjoyment. 1 Kilgore, Assistant Professor, and Ellefson, Professor, Department of

Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Investment, Taxation, and Regulatory Environment (Indicator 58)

Michael A. Kilgore and Paul V. Ellefson1
	


Accounting for more than 474 million acres, or nearly

two-thirds of all forest area in the United States, private

forests are owned by some 10 million ownership units

(Birch 1996, USDA Forest Service 1996). Eighty-five

percent of the area of private forests is in nonindustrial

private ownership, with the remaining 15 percent owned

by the forest products industry (Smith and others 2001).

Nearly one-half of the Nation’s private forestland consists

of tracts at least 500 acres in size, with 80 percent

accounted for by tracts at least 50 acres in size. Fifty-nine

percent of the ownerships are smaller than 10 acres in size

(National Research Council 1998).

The economic and ecological contributions of the Nation’s

private forests are significant. More than 80 percent of the

Nation’s timber harvest (13.4 million cubic feet) originates

from private forests; 61 percent of its growing stock inventory occurs on private lands; an estimated 148 million acres

of private forestland is available for recreational use by the

general public; 70 percent of carbon sequestered in the

Nation’s forests is located on private lands (Heath and

Birdsey 1996); habitat for 86 percent of all species listed

as threatened or endangered (609 species) is located on

private property (U.S. General Accounting Office 1994);

and hunting and fishing are among the most popular recreational activities on private forests (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 2001a). The ability of private

forests to sustainably provide these products and services

is directly dependent on the level of investment devoted to

them.

Landowners may invest in private forests for a number of

reasons: to maintain the land in a forested condition; to

improve the growth and value of trees; to reduce the risk

of loss due to insects, diseases, fire, or vandalism; to develop

or improve access through road and trail construction; to

support management planning such as timber harvest or

estate planning; or to support specific land management

objectives such as tree planting, timber stand improvement, or wildlife habitat improvement (National Research

Council 1998). Many forest landowners (primarily nonindustrial landowners) invest in forests in order to capture a

very broad range of market and nonmarket benefits (for

example, recreation, esthetic enjoyment, part of residence)

(Birch 1996, Kuuluvainen and others 1996). Yet for other

landowners (for example, timberland investment management organizations), investments are made with the intent

of maximizing return on investment. This is often true of

industrial timberland owners and other owners of large

private forest holdings. Nearly 30 percent of privately

owned forestland area (industrial and nonindustrial) is

managed with timber production as a principal goal, yet

only 3 percent of owners consider timber production to be

the primary reason for ownership (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 2001a).

Adequate investment in the Nation’s private forests requires

an economic climate that fosters the flow of capital in and

out of the forest sector. Some have questioned whether the

amount of capital required to capture many forest investment opportunities in the United States is available from

most landowners (Kaiser and Royer 1997). Reasons

suggested for this deficiency include high establishment

costs, long investment horizons, uncertain markets, low

liquidity of and access to capital, and various biological

risks associated with forests (National Research Council

1998). The implication is that many individuals and

organizations perceive forestland investments as characterized by high risk and low yield, and thus reject them in

favor of alternative opportunities considered safer and

capable of providing greater return.

Analyses have suggested that investments in forests should

not be regarded as having high risk and low return. One

such analysis suggests that as an asset class, timberland

investment portfolios are characterized by higher-thanaverage returns for a given level of risk (Binkley and

others 1996). The analysis reports that the average cumulative total return (nominal return including land appreciation) during the 10-year period ending in 1996 was 21.4

percent annually for timberland investments and 18.0 percent annually for the S&P 500 Index. Indeed, institutional

investment in timberland grew from less than $100 million

in 1986 to more than $6 billion in 1997, suggesting that

long-term returns to timberland investment are competitive with those from other investments (Yin and Izlar 2001).

Taxation as Investment Influence

Tax policy can be an important means of encouraging or

discouraging behavior that leads to production of goods

and services associated with forests. Tax policy can significantly affect the profitability of forest investments (Bailey

and others 1999), and has been applied in forestry for at

least three basic public purposes: to encourage private

forestland owners to invest in activities that result in

increased timber supply and encourage the flow of capital

from outside sources into the forestry sector; to compensate

private forestland owners for the many nontimber values

provided by forests from which society as a whole benefits; and to provide an equitable basis for long-term investment in forests (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 1990). The taxes that most commonly affect forest

investment and management decisions are those on

income, property, and estates.

Tax policy must be well designed, properly focused, and

well administered if it is to guide investment toward worthwhile opportunities represented by forests and forestry.

Hibbard, Kilgore, and Ellefson (2001) suggest that good

tax policies will have the following characteristics:
	

• Equity—Tax policies should provide for fair treatment

of various sectors and of individuals within a sector.

Under an equitable tax policy, taxpayers would be liable

for the same amount of tax given the same set of circumstances and across a range of abilities to pay. Taxes

can be designed to be proportional or to be discriminatory in the sense of being progressive or regressive. Tax

equity is not achieved easily, however (Klemperer 1996).

• Efficiency—Tax policies should be efficient in gathering revenue for government operations and influencing

private investment decisions. They should not distort or

adversely affect market behavior, nor should they

adversely affect the timing of activities such as harvest

activities and timber stand improvement. Taxation

should neither favor nor discourage decisions to convert

forestland to a nonforest use. Tax policies and programs

should also be administered efficiently (for example,

efficient collection and enforcement).

• Simplicity—Tax policies should be easy to understand

and administer. Taxpayers should clearly know who is

taxing them, how the tax is determined, and how to

make use of various tax provisions. Tax policies that are

designed with simplicity in mind tend to breed a sense

of fairness, reduce compliance costs, and increase

accountability. Principles of simplicity and equity can

be in conflict. For example, full provision for variability

in forest management conditions (for example, site

characteristics, growth rates, markets, species, and landowner objectives) would make the most theoretically

equitable forest tax prohibitively costly to administer

and too complex to apply correctly. Appropriate tax

policy balances equity and simplicity (Minnesota

Department of Revenue 2000).

• Adequacy, stability, and visibility—Tax policies should

provide an adequate, stable, and visible source of

revenue to pay for government services. The revenue

generated by tax polices should be adequate and should

be stable from one tax period to the next. Tax policies

and their administration should be clear and widely

known, so that there is political accountability for the

accomplishment of desired policy outcomes.

To determine whether tax polices promote sustainable

forestry, we should ask the following questions (Hibbard

and others 2001): How do the tax policies affect investments in long-term forest productivity? How do they affect

the propensity of private forestland owners to apply ecologically sound forest management practices? How do they

encourage retention or expansion of the forestland base?

How do they protect and increase the production of wildlife habitat and other important nontimber benefits?

Unfortunately, however, the extent to which tax policies

encourage these outcomes is often unclear. (Brockett and

Gebhard 1999, Klemperer 1989, National Research Council

1998).

Fiscal Incentives as Investment Influence

Fiscal incentives can also be used as a policy tool to

address certain characteristics of forests and forestry that

tend to discourage forest investments. Tree planting, for

example, requires significant capital expenditure without

financial return for very long periods of time, often 60

years or more. Fiscal incentives can be used by government to encourage landowners to make these long-term

investments, investments they might not otherwise consider (Sampson and DeCoster 1997). By providing financial

payments to offset or reduce these large initial capital

outlays, government can increase landowner return on

investment and at the same time encourage the production

of important goods and services desired by the public in

general. Fiscal incentive programs initially were developed to focus on the production of timber, and typically

provided cost-share payments to landowners for tree planting, site preparation, and other cultural practices that tend

to increase productivity. More recently, fiscal incentive

programs have been developed and implemented to address

a wide range of forest resource benefits (for example, wildlife habitat improvement, scenic landscape improvement)

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2001b,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service 2001).

Current Economic Capacity

Federal Government Capacity

Income tax provisions—The Federal tax code contains a

number of provisions that affect private landowners interested in the management of their forests. For example, the

tax code contains provisions that govern the allocation of

costs of purchasing forestland (percentage of value attributed to land, timber, and other property improvements),

the treatment of expenses commonly associated with forest

management activities, and the depreciation of equipment

and land improvements (Bailey and others 1999). Many of

these tax provisions are complex, and vary depending on

taxpayer classification (for example, corporate versus

individual), use and purpose of owning the property

(investment versus a business or hobby), and level of

taxpayer involvement in managing the forest (material

versus no material participation) (Haney and others 2001).

Relatively few provisions, however, have the unique and

specific objective of encouraging landowners to make longterm investments in the management of forest resources.

Rather, tax provisions often apply to a broad range of

income-producing activities of which forest management
	

is but one. Three provisions that are available to encourage

investment in forest resources management are as follows:

• Reforestation amortization and investment credit. The

reforestation amortization and investment credit is

specific to forestland owners. Qualified reforestation

expenditures (or afforestation expenditures in the case

of planting or seeding non-forested land) paid or incurred

in a tax year are eligible for a 10 percent investment tax

credit. Unlike a deduction, which is an offset against

income, a credit is a direct offset against taxes. In

addition, qualified reforestation costs (direct expenses

incurred in establishing a stand of timber, whether by

planting, seeding, or natural regeneration) can be amortized as a deduction over 8 tax years to an annual maximum of $9,500 if the credit is taken. Individuals,

estates, partnerships, and corporations are eligible for

either or both the amortization and the tax credit. Trusts

are not eligible for either (Haney and others 2001).

Additionally, Federal and State cost-share payments

used for reforestation can generally be excluded from

gross income.

• Capital gains treatment of timber—The Federal tax

code also provides for lower tax rates (capital gains tax

treatment) on the sale or cutting by the owner of standing timber that meets certain standards (how long timber

has been owned, how it is disposed of, and whether or

not it is held as an investment or as part of a business).

Capital gains treatment for timber can substantially

lower tax bills. In 1999, noncorporate taxpayers were

taxed at five levels for ordinary income, with a maximum rate of 39.6 percent. Noncorporate long-term

capital gains, however, were generally taxed at rates no

higher than 20 percent (10 percent for gain that otherwise would be taxed in the lowest, 15 percent rate

bracket). Certain noncorporate capital gains realized

after December 31, 2000 are taxed at a top rate of 18

percent and at a bottom rate of 8 percent if the timber

has been held for 5 years (table 1). For corporations,

ordinary income and long-term capital gains are taxed

at the same rates (table 2) (Haney and others 2001).

• Management expense—Corporate and noncorporate

timber owners may generally deduct management costs

relating to timber held as an investment against income

from any source in the year they were incurred (as

opposed to capitalizing them). Management costs include

normal expenses associated with managing the forest

property (for example, consultant fees, labor, silvicultural and related management activities) and carrying

charges (for example, insurance, property taxes). The

specific tax treatment of management costs and carrying

charges depends on a landowner’s specific tax classification and ownership objectives (Haney and others 2001).

Estate tax provisions—Federal estate taxes can impose

significant burdens on the inheritors of highly valued forestlands (table 3). Because a high tax rate may be imposed

(50 percent maximum in 2002), estate taxes can affect

forest management and timber harvesting activities and

may, in extreme circumstances, force premature timber

liquidation or outright forestland disposal in order to satisfy

estate taxes. Major reforms in Federal estate tax provisions

were made in 1997 and 2001. Through 2001, the Federal

estate and gift tax were combined into a unified tax on the

transfer of wealth. A “unified credit” shielded large, lifetime gifts and estates from tax, up to a certain value. Gifts

and estates over the unified credit were taxed at rates ranging from 37 to 50 percent. Beginning in 2002, gift and

estate taxes are treated separately, each with their own

exemptions ($1 million each for gift and estate exemptions

in 2002, with the latter increasing to $3.5 million in 2009).

The maximum gift and estate taxes (55 percent in 2002)

will decrease to 45 percent by 2009. In 2010, the estate

tax is eliminated completely, and the maximum gift tax

rate will equal the top individual income tax rate. At the

end of 2010, however, these provisions are scheduled to

“sunset,” returning the estate and gift taxes to their status

prior to 2002.

Table 1—Federal noncorporate income tax rates (2001)

Type of taxpayer (taxable income) Type of income

Married taxpayers Single Estates Ordinary Net capital

filing joint return taxpayers and trusts income gains

thousands - - - - - - - percent - - - - - -

$ 0 – 45,200 $ 0 – 27,050 $ 0 – 1,800 15 8

$ 45,201 –109,250 $ 27,051 – 65,550 $ 1,801 – 4,250 27.5 18

$ 109,251 – 166,500 $ 65,551 – 136,750 $ 4,251 – 6,500 30.5 18

$ 166,501 – 297,350 $ 136,750 – 297,350 $ 6,501 – 8,900 35.5 18

$ 297,351 + $ 297,351 + $8,901 + 39.1 18

Source: Haney and others (2001).
	

Current estate tax law provides for (a) an increasing credit

that has the effect of exempting a portion of the value of

the estate from taxation, (b) valuation of the forestland

estate (both land and timber up to certain limits) on the

basis of current use (as opposed to fair market value), and

(c) exclusion of up to 40 percent of the land and timber’s

value (up to certain limits) if the land is enrolled in a

qualified conservation easement. With careful planning,

the death tax liability on a forestland estate can be reduced

by more than 50 percent by taking advantage of specific

estate tax provisions (Peters and others 1998).

Fiscal incentive programs—The Federal Government has

a number of agencies and programs involved in reducing

or offsetting large initial investments in management and

related activities considered necessary to protect, improve,

restore, and sustain forest resources (National Research

Council 1998) (table 4). Although not all of these programs

and agencies focus directly on forests, Federal funds available for cost-share and related fiscal support of private

actions affecting forest conditions probably exceeds $1

billion annually. These funds are administered by at least

seven major Federal agencies. The following are five

examples of Federal fiscal incentive programs that encourage long-term investment in the management of forests.

Some of these programs were terminated by the 2002

Farm Bill and replaced by similar, but not identical,

programs that have yet to be fully developed.

• Forest Legacy Program (FLP)—The Forest Legacy

Program is designed to protect private forestlands from

being converted to nonforest uses. Focusing on protecting environmentally sensitive forestlands, the FLP provides for the acquisition of partial interests in privately

owned forestlands using conservation easements. As

legally binding agreements that transfer certain property

rights from one party to another, conservation easements

restrict development while requiring practices that sustain forest values. Voluntary participation in the program

is limited to private forestland owners. To qualify, landowners must prepare a multiple-resource management

plan that accompanies the conservation easement. The

Federal Government may fund up to 75 percent of

program costs, with at least 25 percent coming from

private, State, or local sources. In addition to gains

associated with the sale or donation of property rights,

many landowners also benefit from reduced taxes associated with limits placed on land use. The USDA Forest

Service administers the Forest Legacy Program in cooperation with State foresters. The State grant option allows

States a greater role in implementing the program. The

FLP also encourages partnerships with local governments

and land trusts, recognizing the important contributions

that landowners, communities, and private organizations

make to conservation efforts (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2001b). In 2001, $60 million was

appropriated to the Forest Legacy Program (table 5).

• Forest Stewardship Program (FSP)—The Forest Stewardship Program provides resources to assist private forestland owners in developing plans for the sustainable

management of their forests. Program funds are used to

pay for professional advice and assistance in preparing

detailed natural resource management plans that reflect

both landowner objectives and broader society-wide

interests in private forests. These forest management

plans provide guidance for the production of timber,

wildlife habitat, watershed protection, recreational

Table 3—Federal estate and gift tax rates

(2002-2009)

Maximum estate and

Estate tax applicable gift tax rate

Tax Exclusion Tax Tax

year amount year rate

percent

2002 $1,000,000 2002 50

2003 $1,000,000 2003 49

2004 $1,500,000 2004 48

2005 $1,500,000 2005 47

2006 $2,000,000 2006 46

2007 $2,000,000 2007 45

2008 $2,000,000 2008 45

2009 $3,500,000 2009 45

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury (2002).

Table 2—Corporate Federal income tax rates (2001)

Type of income

(maximum

marginal tax rate)

Ordinary Net capital

Taxable income income gains

- - - - - - - percent - - - - - -

$ 0 – 50,000 15 15

$ 50,000 – 75,000 25 25

$ 75,000 – 100,000 34 34

$ 100,000 – 335,000 39 39

$ 335,000 – 10,000,000 34 34

$ 10,000,000 – 15,000,000 35 35

$ 15,000,000 – 18,333,333 38 38

$ 18,333,333+ 35 35

Source: Haney and others (2001).
	

opportunities, and other benefits. While there are no

ownership restrictions, recipients of FSP-funded plans

typically own less than 1,000 acres of forestland. Participation is available to individuals and noncommercial

landowners who agree to manage their forestland as

specified in a plan for at least 10 years. FSP is not a costshare program; rather it provides technical and planning

guidance, encouraging multiresource management.

Completion of a forest stewardship plan is required of

landowners seeking eligibility for cost-share assistance

Table 4—Federal programs providing financial assistance to public and private interests in forests and related

resources, by program, resource focus, available funding, and administering agency (2002)

Program Resource focus Available funds Lead administering agency

Chesapeake Bay Grants Program Water $15 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Coastal Zone Program Wildlife $9 million USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

Conservation Operations Program Soil NA USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Conservation Reserve Program Soil $250 million (est) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Soil $200 million (est) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Program

Economic Action/Rural Community Forests $15 million USDA Forest Service

Programs

Emergency Watershed Protection Program Water * USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Environmental Quality Incentives Program Soil & Water $174 million USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Farmland Protection Program Land $10 million (est) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Forest Health Protection Program Forests NA USDA Forest Service

Forestry Incentives Program Forests $7 million USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Forestry on Indian Lands Program Forests $38 million USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs

Forest Legacy Program Forests $60 million USDA Forest Service

Forest Stewardship Program Forests $33 million USDA Forest Service

Land and Water Conservation Fund Grants Land $40 million USDI National Park Service

Program

Nonpoint Source Implementing Grants Water $200 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Program

North American Wetlands Conservation Wetlands & $44 million USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

Program (Act) Wildlife

National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Wetlands $12 million USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

Program

National Estuary Program Water $15 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Payments in lieu of taxes Various $150 million USDI Bureau of Land Management

Stewardship Incentives Program Forests (None) USDA Forest Service

Sustainable Development Challenge Grants Land $5 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Rural Community Fire Protection Program Forests $2 million USDA Forest Service

Urban and Community Forestry Program Forests $30 million USDA Forest Service

Water Quality Cooperative Agreement Water $19 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Grants Program

Watershed Protection and Flood Water $100 million USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Prevention Program

Wetlands Program Development Grants Wetlands $15 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Program

Wetlands Reserve Program Wetlands $76 million USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Wildlife $1 million USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

Program

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program Wildlife $8 million (est) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Note: Annual funding level presented. Asterisk indicates information is not readily available.
	

through the Stewardship Incentives Program. Approximately $33 million was appropriated for this program in

FY 2001 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service 2001b) (table 5).

• Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP)—Established in

1990, the Stewardship Incentives Program provides

financial assistance to private landowners to carry out

forest stewardship plans and also supports implementation of forestry practices by other Federal and State

agencies through their land conservation programs. The

planning and evaluation requirements of the FSP, and

the broadness of the range of management activities the

SIP program supports, encourage landowners to undertake a variety of forest enhancement and protection

activities that might not otherwise be accomplished. The

SIP supports a wide range of forest management activities that, when implemented as part of a comprehensive

forest stewardship plan, contribute to a healthy forest

ecosystem. These activities include development of

stewardship plans; reforestation and afforestation; forest

and agroforest improvement; windbreak and hedgerow

establishment, maintenance, and renovation; soil and

water protection and improvement; riparian and wetland

protection and improvement; fisheries habitat enhancement; wildlife habitat enhancement; and forest recreation enhancement. SIP participants generally own less

than 1,000 acres, with waivers up to 5,000 acres on lands

with potential for significant public benefit. The Federal

Government may reimburse the landowner for up to 75

percent of approved expenses, to a maximum of $10,000

per year per landowner, in exchange for landowner agreement to maintain and protect SIP-funded practices for a

minimum of 10 years. No Federal appropriations were

made for this program in 2001 (U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service 2001b) (table 5).

• Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)—Since its inception

in 1973, the Forestry Incentives Program has supported

tree planting, forest stand improvement, and site preparation for natural regeneration. In all three instances,

the principal goal is to build or restore the capacity of

nonindustrial private forestlands to produce timber. However, the program recognizes that healthy productive

forests also provide many other public goods, such as

watershed protection, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and

recreational activities. Participation in the FIP is limited

to nonindustrial private forestland owners, whose properties must meet selection criteria designed to ensure that

the most productive forestland receives funding. Participants generally own less than 1000 acres of forest. The

Federal Government may pay up to 75 percent of

approved expenses, to a maximum of $10,000 per year

per landowner, in exchange for landowner agreement to

maintain and protect funded practices for a minimum of

10 years. In 2001, $6.8 million was appropriated to the

FIP (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service 2001) (table 5).

• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)—The Conservation Reserve Program encourages farmers to convert

highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive agricultural land to vegetative cover (for example,

tame or native grasses, wildlife habitat plantings, trees,

filter strips, or riparian buffers). Farmers receive an annual

rental payment for the term of a multiyear contract

which can be of 10 to 15 years duration. Cost-sharing is

provided to establish the vegetative cover practices. The

Federal Government may pay up to 50 percent of cover

Table 5—Funding levels of selected Federal fiscal incentive programs focused

on private forests (1993-2001)

Forest Stewardship Forest Forestry

Fiscal Stewardship Incentives Legacy Incentives

year Program Program Program Program

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1993 23,280,000 17,847,000 9,915,000 12,446,000

1994 25,791,000 17,932,000 6,948,000 12,820,000

1995 25,908,000 18,283,000 0 6,625,000

1996 23,378,000 4,500,000 3,000,000 6,325,000

1997 23,378,000 4,500,000 2,000,000 6,325,000

1998 23,880,000 6,500,000 4,000,000 6,325,000

1999 28,830,000 0 7,012,000 16,325,000

2000 29,833,000 0 29,933,000 5,376,000

2001 32,782,000 0 59,868,000 6,811,000

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2001b); U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service (2001).
	

crop or tree establishment costs, and rental payments of

up to $50,000 per year per landowner during the 10-year

rental period. CRP tree-planting contracts applied to

more than 2.6 million acres as of the end of 2001 (U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency 2002;

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service 2001).

State Government Capacity

State governments have also established tax and fiscal

incentives programs important to forest sustainability. The

following describes selected State tax and fiscal incentive

programs focused on forest sustainability.

Taxation provisions—State income, estate, and property

taxes often include provisions designed to protect the

sustainability of privately owned forests. Property taxes

are unique to State and local governments and are implemented in many different ways when applied to forestland.

In 1992 all States had tax provisions designed to promote

sustainable forestry. Tax programs for promoting reforestation (16 States) and protecting water quality (14 States)

were most common (table 6). In 1985, 11 States had tax

incentive programs designed specifically to encourage

private landowners to create, improve, or preserve forest

wildlife habitat (Wigley and Melchiors 1987) (table 7).

• Income tax—All but seven States impose income taxes

on individuals, with marginal tax rates ranging from 0.5

to 12 percent. Only four States do not have an income

tax on corporations (Deloitte & Touche 2002). Of States

with income tax codes for individuals and corporations,

the majority use the Federal tax code as the basis for

Table 6—State government fiscal and tax programs promoting best-forest-practice standards on private forests, by

forestry activity, region, and type of program (1992)

Number of States in region having program type Major forestry

activity and North- Lake Mid- Mid- South- South- Great Rocky

type of program east States Atlantic continent east central Plains Mtn. West Total

Protect water quality

Tax incentives 1 1 4 3 0 1 3 1 0 14

Fiscal incentives 2 3 5 3 1 4 5 4 2 29

Promote reforestation

Tax incentives 2 3 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 16

Fiscal incentives 5 2 5 3 4 5 5 5 3 37

Improve timberharvesting methods

Tax incentives 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 9

Fiscal incentives 3 0 4 0 0 1 2 2 1 13

Protect from wildfire,

insects, and diseases

Tax incentives 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 6

Fiscal incentives 1 1 4 2 1 0 2 4 2 17

Protect wildlife and

endangered species

Tax incentives 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3

Fiscal incentives 3 2 5 3 2 4 5 2 2 28

Enhance recreation and

aesthetic qualities

Tax incentives 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 8

Fiscal incentives 4 1 6 2 2 4 2 3 1 25

Note: Regional groupings of States are Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT; Lake States: MI, MN, WI; Mid-Atlantic: DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV;

Mid-Continent: IL, IN, KT, MO, OH; Southeast: AL, FL GA, MS, NC, SC; South Central: AR, LA, OK, TN, TX; Great Plains: IA, KS, NB, ND, SD;

Rocky Mountain: AZ, CO, MT, NM, UT, WY; West: AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA.

Source: Ellefson and others (1995).
	

treating income and expenses for State income tax

purposes. (Purdue University 2002). For example, most

States use Federal adjusted gross income as the starting

point for determining State income tax liabilities. Nearly

all State income tax codes contain provisions that differ

from the Federal tax code, some of which affect forestland owners. For example, analysis of income tax laws

in 14 southern States revealed that the treatment of

specific income tax provisions (for example, standard

deductions, deductibility of Federal income taxes,

exemptions, and long-term capital gains exclusions)

varied, and could affect tax liabilities associated with

forestland investment and management (Bailey and

others 1999, Federation of Tax Administrators 2001).

• Estate tax provisions—Twenty-nine States impose estate

or inheritance taxes. The latter are often “piggyback”

taxes, whereby a State takes a portion of the Federal

estate tax as a State tax credit. The tax paid generally

equals the difference between the estate tax credit

allowed on the Federal estate tax return, on the one

hand, and the estate or inheritance tax imposed by the

State government, on the other. The net result is no net

increase in the taxpayer’s liability. Sixteen States impose

an inheritance tax on heirs receiving the property, and

five States tax the right of the decedent’s estate to transfer property (Peters and others 1998).

• Property tax provisions—Property tax is most often

collected by counties and distributed to the local units

of government who impose the tax (for example, counties, cities, townships, school districts, or other special

taxing districts). Although the property tax is generally

a local source of revenue, nearly every aspect of

property taxes is controlled by State statutes and State

agencies. In 1994-1995, property taxes generated $193

billion, a sum that was 28.6 percent of the total revenue

needed by local units of government (Sokolow 1998).

Depending on the specific design of the program, the

property tax generally has one to three functions: to

raise money for the taxing authority, to redistribute

income and wealth, and to encourage certain types of

behavior (Grayson 1993). Tax program design determines the entity subject to the tax, the methods of

taxation, and the use of the revenue collected (Hibbard

and others 2001, Purdue University 2002).

A wide variety of property tax classifications and programs exist in the United States. Five of these have

special relevance to forests and forestry: current use, ad

valorem, flat, yield, and exemption. An examination of

63 programs or classifications determined program frequency as: current use, 36; ad valorem, 15; flat tax, 9;

and combined current use-ad valorem programs, 3

(Hibbard and others 2001, Purdue University 2002)

(tables 8 and 9). At least one type of program exists in

each State. Yield tax is not considered separately; it is

always imposed in addition to another tax type and

could be added to all of the categories.

• Current-use programs. In the United States, more

than half of all property tax programs for forestland

are current-use programs (tables 8 and 9). Such

programs employ income capitalization formulas for

valuation, administratively or legislatively determined

land-use values, or annual measures of timberland

growth value. More than three-fifths of current use

programs employ income capitalization formulas,

which value land according to the income it can

produce. Most programs based on income capitalization make use of soil and land productivity classes.

These soil or land productivity classes are translated

into yield information, which is multiplied by a

determined average price, often a multiyear moving

average, and then management costs are deducted.

Not all States deduct management costs when capitalizing land income. A number of different methods

are used to calculate these costs. The capitalization

rate used in current-use valuation is often indexed to

a Federal or State bank rate, with the current rate

averaging 9.9 percent (varying from 4.5 percent to 13

percent). The rate selected is important and it is often

selected in a highly charged political environment

(Hibbard and others 2001, Purdue University 2002).

Typically, determined-use values are established by

State agencies or boards. Counties determine the

values in a few instances and State legislatures determine them even more rarely. Since the seemingly

more scientific method of income capitalization is

really politically determined, determined values may

not be of any greater or lesser value or objectivity

than income capitalization values. Determined-usevalue programs make up one-third of the current use

programs, and the balance are programs using values

Table 7. State wildlife agencies offering fiscal, tax, and

technical services to enhance private investment in

forest and related wildlife habitat (1985)

Program type offered

Fiscal Tax TechnicalRegion incentives incentives educational

- - - - - - - - - number of States - - - - - - - - - -

East 3 3 19

South 0 0 6

North 5 5 18

West 4 3 7

Total 12 11 50

Source: Wigley and Melchiors (1987).
	Table 8—State forest property tax programs, by State, program type, eligibility, and ad valorem characteristics (2000)

Eligibility requirements Modified ad valorem

Minimum Maximum Minimum Management Percent Minimum Modified Original Productivity Capitalization

State Program name Program type acreage acreage History income plan stocked growth rate rate classes Price rate Costs

- - - - - - percent - - - - - - percent

Alabama Class III Income 10 20 4 Agency 4.50 .15 (of

capitalization set Y*P)

Alaska ExemptionArizona Class I Modified 25

ad valorem

Arkansas Income 20 20 10-year

capitalization average

California Timberland Income 15 cubic

production capitalization ft/acrezones

Colorado Agricultural Income 40 Yes 10 29 29 13

land capitalization

Connecticut Forestland Income 25 12.4

capitalization

Delaware a. Forest-use land Determined- 10 2 yrs $1,000/yr

use value

b. Commercial Exemption 10 Yes

forest plantation

Florida Agricultural Income 7 $30 to 12.6 $12.85/

purposes capitalization $70/cord acre

Georgia a. Agricultural Modified 2,000 75 100 9

preferential ad valoremassessment

b. Conservation Income 2,000

 use capitalization

and ad valorem

Hawaii Timber farm Determined-use 10 Yes

property value

Idaho a. Forestland Ad valorem 5

 less than 5 acresb. Forestlands Income 5 5,000 12 5-year

 tax capitalization averagec. Forest Bare ad products valorem yield tax

Illinois a. Other farmland Income . Yes 4

b. Vegetative Capitalization 66 ft. 16 33.3 filter strip

continued
		

Table 8—State forest property tax programs, by State, program type, eligibility, and ad valorem characteristics (2000) (continued)

Eligibility requirements Modified ad valorem

Minimum Maximum Minimum Management Percent Minimum Modified Original Productivity Capitalization

State Program name Program type acreage acreage History income plan stocked growth rate rate classes Price rate Costs

- - - - - - percent - - - - - - percent

Indiana a. Classified Flat 10

 forestland ($1 per acre)b. Woodland Modified 50 33.3 100

ad valorem

c. Windbreaks 50 ft.d. Wildlife Flat <10 ac.d. habitat ($1 per acre)e. Filter strips Flat 20 ft. 70 ft.

($1 per acre)

Iowa a. Forest Exemption 2 200

 reservation trees/ac.b. Agricultural Income 7 use capitalization

Kansas Agricultural Income 30.0

use capitalization

Kentucky Agricultural Income 10

land capitalization

& ad valorem

Louisiana Timberland Income 3 $2,000/yr 4 10 $6.53

capitalization /ac

Maine Forestland Productivity 10 YesMaryland Agricultural Determined Yes

use use value

Massachusetts a. Forestland Modified 10 Yes 16.7 5% fmv

ad valorem

b. Recreation Modified 5 25% fmv land ad valorem

Michigan a. Private forest Flat 160 1,200

 reservation ($1 per acre) treesb. Commercial Flat Yes 20 cu. forest reserve ($1 per acre) ft/ac/yr

Minnesota a. Timberland (2b) Modified 1.2

ad valorem

b. Tree growth tax Productivity 5

Mississippi Agricultural Income 15 5 >10

use capitalization

Missouri Forest Flat 20

croplands ($3 per acre)

continued
Table 8—State forest property tax programs, by State, program type, eligibility, and ad valorem characteristics (2000) (continued)

Eligibility requirements Modified ad valorem

Minimum Maximum Minimum Management Percent Minimum Modified Original Productivity Capitalization

State Program name Program type acreage acreage History income plan stocked growth rate rate classes Price rate Costs

- - - - - - percent - - - - - - percent

Montana Forestland Income 15 5

capitalization

Nebraska Agricultural Modified 80

land ad valorem

Nevada Agricultural Modified 7 5

use ad valorem

New Forestland Determined 10Hampshire use valueNew Jersey Agricultural Determined 5 2 yrs Yes 5

use use value

New Mexico Agricultural Income 1

use capitalization

New York Forestland Modified 50 Yes 80 100

(480-a) ad valorem

North Forestland Income 20 9

Carolina capitalizationNorth Dakota Forest stew- Flat 10

ardship tax ($0.50 per acre)

Ohio a. Current Income 10 3 yrs $2,500/yr

 agricultural capitalization use valueb. Forest Modified 10 Yes 50 100 tax law ad valorem

Oklahoma Timberland Modified

ad valorem

Oregon (New program) Ad valoremPennsylvania Forest reserves Income 10 9.5 $4.71/ac

capitalization

Rhode Island Forestland Determined Yes

use value

South Agricultural Income 5Carolina use capitalizationSouth Agricultural DeterminedDakota land use valueTennessee Forestland Income Yes

capitalizationand ad valorem

continued


Table 8—State forest property tax programs, by State, program type, eligibility, and ad valorem characteristics (2000) (continued)

Eligibility requirements Modified ad valorem

Minimum Maximum Minimum Management Percent Minimum Modified Original Productivity Capitalization

State Program name Program type acreage acreage History income plan stocked growth rate rate classes Price rate Costs

- - - - - - percent - - - - - - percent

Texas Timberland Income 5 of 7 4

capitalization years

Utah Agriculture Determined 5 2 yrs 6

use use value

Vermont Managed Determined 25 Yes

forestland use value

Virginia Forest use Income 20 40 8.58

capitalization

Washington a. Classified Determined 20

 forestland use valueb. Designated Determined 20 20 forestland use valuec. Open space Determined 5 timber use value

West Virginia Managed Income 10 Yes 40 3

timberland capitalization

Wisconsin Managed Flat 10 Yes 20 cu. ft.

forest ($0.83 per acre) per acre

Wyoming Agricultural Income 7.67

land capitalization

Note: Fair market value is indicated by “fmv.” For Minnesota and New York, “2b” and “”480-a” refer to sections in State law, respectively.
Table 9—State forest property tax programs, by State, administration, penalties, and severance-yield characteristics (2000)

Administration Penalties Severance or yield tax Other characteristics

State and Contract Percent of Percent of Percent Number of Privilege Percent of

program name Application Fee Agency period Rollback Interest inventory stumpage Type or set categories tax severance

Alabama

Class III One-time County 3 years Severance Set 14 Exemption Standing

assessor timber

Alaska Severance Local Auxiliary

Stateforests

Arizona

Class I Severance Set 2

Arkansas Severance Set 2 Special $0.15/acre

timberland for firetax protection

California

Timberland pro- County Up to Yield 2.9 Exemption Standing

duction zones board 10 years timber

Colorado

Agricultural State None

land agency

Connecticut

Forestland Yes State Yield 2 to 10 Conveyance 1% to

forester tax 10 % of

sale price

Delaware

a. Forest use Yes County 1 year None Exemption Commercial

land assessor

b. Commercial Yes State 1 year None

forest agency

plantation

Florida

Agricultural One-time County Nonepurposes appraiser

Georgia

a. Agric. preferen- Yield None

tial assessment

b. Conservation Yield Percent

use of fair

market

value

Hawaii

Timber farm Yes State 20 years Yes None

property agency

continued


Table 9—State forest property tax programs, by State, administration, penalties, and severance-yield characteristics (2000) (continued)

Administration Penalties Severance or yield tax Other characteristics

State and Contract Percent of Percent of Percent Number of Privilege Percent of

program name Application Fee Agency period Rollback Interest inventory stumpage Type or set categories tax severance

Idaho

a. Forestland None 3%

a. less than 5 acresb. Forestlands tax 10 years Nonec. Forest products 10 years Yieldc. yield tax

Illinois

a. Other farmland Yield 4%b. Vegetative Yield 4%

filter strip

Indiana

a. Classified Dept. of Nonea. forestland Natural

Resources

b. Woodland None

c. Windbreaks Noned. Wildlife habitats Nonee. Filter strips None

Iowa

a. Forest County None

reservation assessor

b. Agricultural use None

Kansas

Agricultural use None

Kentucky

Agricultural land None

Louisiana

Timberland Yes Parish 4 years Severance 2.25% 6 Forest $0.08/ac

assessor to 5% protection

tax

Maine

Forestland 5 years None

Maryland

Agricultural Use Yes Dept. of 15 years None

NaturalResources

Massachusetts

a. Forestland Every State Yes Yes Yield 8%

10 years forester

b. Recreation land Yield 8%

continued
Table 9—State forest property tax programs, by State, administration, penalties, and severance-yield characteristics (2000) (continued)

Administration Penalties Severance or yield tax Other characteristics

State and Contract Percent of Percent of Percent Number of Privilege Percent of

program name Application Fee Agency period Rollback Interest inventory stumpage Type or set categories tax severance

Michigan

a. Private forest County 5 Yield 5%a. reservation assessorb. Commercial Yes $1/ac 7-15 Yield 5%

b. forest reserve years plus

$1/acre

Minnesota

a. Timberland (2b) None

b. Tree growth tax 10 years Yes None

Mississippi

Agricultural use County Severance 12 Forest $0.09/ac

assessor acreage

tax

Missouri

Forest croplands Yes Yes Yes Yield 6%

Montana

Forestland Severance $0.15/mbf

Nebraska

Agricultural land None

Nevada

Agricultural use County None

assessor

New Jersey

Agricultural use Annual State 3 years None

agency

New Mexico

Agricultural use Yes County Severance 0.13% Resource 0.0375%

assessor excise tax for timber

processing

New York

Forestland Annual County 10 year Yield 6%(480-a) assessor rolling

North Carolina

Forestland Yes County 3 years Yes Severance 4

assessor

North Dakota

Forest steward- Yes County 5 years Noneship tax commissioner

Ohio

a. Current agri- Annual $25 County 3 years Nonea. cultural use auditora. valueb. Forest tax law Yes $50 County None

auditor

Oklahoma

Timberland None

continued


Table 9—State forest property tax programs, by State, administration, penalties, and severance-yield characteristics (2000) (continued)

Administration Penalties Severance or yield tax Other characteristics

State and Contract Percent of Percent of Percent Number of Privilege Percent of

program name Application Fee Agency period Rollback Interest inventory stumpage Type or set categories tax severance

Oregon

(New program) Yield $3.19/mbf

Pennsylvania

Forest reserves Yes County 7 years 6% None

board

Rhode Island

Forestland Yes State None

agency

South Carolina

Agricultural use Yes 6 years Severance 4

South Dakota

Agricultural land None

Tennessee

Forestland Yes County None

assessor

Texas

Timberland Yes County 5 years 7% None

appraiser

Utah

Agriculture use Yes County 5 years None

assessor

Vermont

Managed Yes 10 years 20 None

forest land

Virginia

Forest use Yes County 6 years Severance 11

assessor

Washington

a. Classified None 10 years Yield 5%

a. forestland Forest fire

b. Designated Yes County 10 years Yield 5% protection

b. forestland assessor tax

c. Open space Yes 7 years Yield 5%c. timber

West Virginia

Managed 5 year 9% Yield 3.22% Woodland $2 pertimberland tax parcel

Wisconsin

Managed forest 25 or Unlimited 5 Yield 5%

50 years

Wyoming

Agricultural land None

Note: For program name and type in application column refer to table 8.


of annual growth for taxation. Only two States, Maine

and Minnesota, use annual growth programs, in which

annual growth is multiplied by an average price that is

then reduced by a legislatively determined percentage.

(Hibbard and others 2001, Purdue University 2002).

• Ad valorem tax program—Ad valorem tax systems

are the second most-common type of property tax

program for forestland (tables 8 and 9). Most ad

valorem forestland property tax programs are modified

in nature, with very few utilizing a full fair-market

value as the basis for property valuation. Most

programs also reduce the fair-market value by some

percentage, and the reduction is often greater for

forested land than for land that is not in a forested

condition. Ad valorem programs in many States

(especially those with very limited forestland area)

simply combine forestland into an agricultural classification. In yet other States, a special forest classification is established, and forestland is taxed using a

reduced fair market valuation. The differences in rate

reductions are great, with some States instituting a

slight reduction in valuation and other States providing more than a 50-percent reduction in taxable value.

• Flat tax program—Flat tax programs tax all lands at

the same rate, although some are accompanied by a

yield tax (tables 8 and 9). Nine such programs exist at

the time of this writing (four of these in one State).

Flat tax rates vary from $0.50 per acre to $3.00 per

acre, with an average charge of $1.16 per acre.

• Tax exemption program—Property tax exemption programs, in which certain forestlands are exempted from

property taxation for a limited or indefinite period of

time, are relatively rare in the United States, occurring

only in Alaska, Delaware, and Iowa (tables 8 and 9).

Three States (Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee) combine an income capitalization valuation mechanism

and an ad valorem or modified ad valorem valuation

mechanism. These programs value land by assigning

a percentage of an income capitalization valuation

plus a percentage of an ad valorem valuation to equal

a full valuation. Georgia bases its full “current use”

value on 65 percent of an income capitalization value

and 35 percent of comparable market sales.

State governments can also levy an additional property

tax on forestland. Generally, these taxes are for such

management activities as fire protection or for discouraging changes in forestland use, although they may

also include severance taxes that are sometimes levied

against processors as well as producers. Examples of

such tax programs are the Privilege Tax (Alabama),

Special Timberland Tax (Arkansas), Conveyance Tax

(Connecticut), Forest Protection Tax (Louisiana),

Forest Acreage Tax (Mississippi), Resource Excise

Tax (New Mexico), Land-Use Change Tax (Rhode

Island), Forest Fire Protection Tax (Washington), and

Woodland Tax (West Virginia) (Hibbard and others

2001, Purdue University 2002).

Fiscal incentive programs—Many States have developed

cost-share and other fiscal incentive programs to help

private landowners manage forest resources sustainably

(Bullard and Straka 1988, Ellefson and others 1995) (table

6). In 1992, State fiscal incentive programs targeting reforestation existed in 8 of 10 States and fostered forest practices important to water quality in 6 of 10 States. Fiscal

incentives were common even for purposes of promoting

practices that enhanced forest recreation and aesthetic

qualities (25 States), and protecting wildlife and endangered species (28 States).

A variety of State agencies offer financial assistance to

private landowners. For example, in 1985, the wildlife

agencies of 12 States provided fiscal incentives to private

landowners to manage forested habitats as required by

various species of wildlife (Wigley and Melchiors 1987)

(table 7). Seven cabinet-level units of State government

and 29 first-tier subcabinet units implemented programs

that provided fiscal assistance to private landowners in

2000. Three governing or advisory bodies of State government did this also. In addition, many agencies of State

government also offered tax and fiscal incentives for purposes of economic development and business promotion in

a forest resource context (in 2000: 47 cabinet-level units,

46 subcabinet-level units) (Ellefson and others 2001,

2002).

Many State fiscal incentive programs are developed to complement Federal cost-share programs either by providing

funding or by addressing specific resource needs not

addressed by Federal cost-share programs (Appendix A).

Most State programs concentrate on reforestation and

related activities that promote investment in healthy and

sustainable forests. For example, the Wisconsin Forest

Landowner Grant Program provides up to 65 percent costshare assistance (up to $10,000 per year) to private landowners within the State to develop land management plans

and implement certain land management practices. The

latter include tree planting and timber stand improvement

measures such as crop-tree release, crop-tree pruning, and

thinning. Such practices can be directed toward timber

production as well as toward enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

2001). Virginia’s cost-share program provides 40 percent

of the cost of restoration or management of pine, and is

funded by Virginia’s forest industry with matching funds

from the Virginia general fund (Virginia Department of

Forestry 2001).


Summary of Conditions

Forestland owners in the United States have a long history

of making long-term investments in reforestation and various silvicultural practices. Tax policies and fiscal incentive

programs can influence the extent to which the Nation’s

private landowners invest in the management of their

forests and maintain the land in a forested condition. In

light of the background and current conditions discussed,

the following observations are made about the identification and measurement of the legal and institutional capacity to foster investment that is important to sustainable

forestry.

• Federal and State governments use taxation and fiscal

assistance programs to influence long-term investment

in the use and management of private forests. These

types of programs enable private forestland owners to

obtain assistance in underwriting capital investments

deemed necessary to provide for a variety of important

benefits associated with forests.

• Taxation programs applicable to all citizens, or exclusively to owners of private forests, are of various types

and are implemented by local, State, and Federal governments. They include taxes on income, estates, and

property, and each of these programs can affect the

efficiency and profitability of private investments in

forest management.

• Federal income tax provisions, such as those that apply

to reforestation and other silvicultural practices, help

reduce the overall income tax liability of forest owners.

However, with the exception of reforestation amortization provisions, investment credit provisions, and provision for exclusion of reforestation cost-share payments

from income, few of these measures are designed

exclusively to encourage investment in private forests.

Reforestation investment credit provides taxpayers a

direct offset against tax liability for reforestation activities. With a credit limit of 10 percent of qualified reforestation expenses up to $10,000, the credit’s annual

benefit is greatest for those taxpayers with modest

annual reforestation investments.

• Federal and State estate tax laws can place significant

burdens on the heirs of highly valuable forest properties.

In order to satisfy death tax liabilities often associated

with estate transfer, forestland may be sold or timber

may be prematurely liquidated. Current estate tax laws

do have provisions (current-use valuation, use of conservation easements) that can significantly reduce

forestland estate tax burdens.

• State income taxes provide very limited incentive for

long-term investment in forest resources, although some

State codes provide special benefits to owners of private

forests. State income tax programs often use the Federal

income tax program as a basis for establishing liability

for State taxes generally.

• Forestland is taxed in a variety of ways by State and

local units of government. Most property tax programs

have provisions that reduce net tax liability. The four

types of property tax programs most frequently applied

to private forests are current use, modified ad valorem,

flax tax, and tax exemption.

• The Federal Government has a number of financial

incentive programs that affect investment in forests.

These are implemented by various Federal agencies.

They are designed to complement private investments in

a range of forestry practices (for example, reforestation,

timber-stand improvement). In recent years, the scope

of forest benefits and related management activities

addressed by these programs has broadened considerably (for example, wildlife, recreation). Unfortunately,

the level of funding for Federal forestry cost-share programs has varied significantly over time (for example,

the Forestry Incentives Program is currently funded at

one-half its 1993 level).

• Financial incentive programs have also been established

by State governments and are often complementary to

Federal fiscal incentive programs. The focus of State

programs and the level of funding they offer to private

landowners vary extensively among States.

Issues and Trends

The literature identifies a number of major issues and

trends associated with investing in forest resources, and

with the policy tools directed at such investments. Examples of this literature (from which the following issues and

trends are drawn) are: Binkley and others 1996, Ellefson

1989, Gaddis and others 1995, Haney and others 2001,

Hibbard and others 2001, Klemperer 1989, National

Research Council 1998, Peters and others 1998, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2001a, Wear

and Greis 2002, and Yin and Izlar 2001.

• Forests are increasingly looked to as viable long-term

financial investments, especially by institutional investors. In the mid-1980s, only six timberland investment

management organizations existed in the U.S., and their

total assets were less than $100 million. By 1997, due in

part to changes in tax laws, 11 investment companies

held timberland assets in the U.S. estimated at $6 billion.

This rapid growth in institutional timberland investment

suggests that forestland is increasingly viewed as a competitive investment asset. Indeed, the average annual

return for institutional timberland investments exceeded

that of the S&P 500 index over a 10-year period ending

in 1996.


• Economic and demographic factors have increased the

influence that Federal and State estate and inheritance

taxes have on forest conditions and management actions.

The high marginal tax burdens associated with such

taxes can alter long-term forest management goals and

investment decisions. In extreme situations, these taxes

can result in premature timber liquidation to satisfy tax

liabilities. Certain Federal estate tax provisions for forestland (current-use valuation and exclusion for conservation easements) can have a substantial effect on

Federal and estate tax liability.

• The owners of forestland must have a good understanding of the many and often complex provisions of Federal

and State tax laws that pertain to forest ownership. The

lack of such an understanding can dramatically affect

the profitability of forestland investments. Recent analyses suggest that landowners who fail to use advantageous income tax provisions can lose more than one-third

of their timberland revenues to income taxes.

• Land management practices eligible for cost-share

assistance through Federal and State fiscal incentive

programs have increased considerably in number and

are likely to increase further. Whereas the initial focus

of such programs was largely on improving timberland

productivity, cost-share programs today provide financial assistance for a wide range of forest and related

management activities having wildlife, water quality,

and environmental benefits.

• Conservation easements and property tax programs are

increasingly looked to as tools to help protect forestlands from being converted to nonforest uses, especially

where development pressure is great. When appropriately combined with other tax and fiscal incentives,

conservation easements apparently can be useful tools

to accomplish interests in forest sustainability.

• Useful analyses of the efficiency and effectiveness of

forest tax and fiscal incentive programs have been very

few in number. Significant uncertainty exists about the

efficiency of such programs, the appropriate scale for

their implementation, and the proper combination in

which they should be applied. The lack of such analysis

of State and Federal forest tax programs is of special

concern.

Information Adequacy

Specification

The variables or combinations of variables that can be

used to describe the economic climate that fosters the

conservation and sustainable management of forests

through long-term investment are numerous. Such a

climate is the collective influence of market conditions,

taxation and investment laws and policies, trade policies,

financial and related assistance to forestland owners, and

regulatory conditions on the management and use of the

Nation’s private forest resources. In 1999, the National

Association of State Foresters surveyed State forestry

agency information about investment and tax policies. The

association reported that only eight States had such information. Of these States, two had abundant information,

four had sufficient information, and two had some information. Two States reported that the quality of their

information was excellent, four that it was adequate, and

two that it was poor (National Association of State

Foresters 1999).

Conditions contributing to the investment climate for

forest management (for example, tax policy, cost-share

programs) have been the subject of analyses and research.

Unfortunately, comprehensive ongoing assessments of

these factors, and of their collective influence on the

investment climate for forest resources management, are

not being conducted. There is no centralized and systematic collection and no ongoing analysis of information

about Federal and State programs that are designed to

encourage long-term investment in forest resources

management. Currently, such information (about program

type, scope, and investment levels) is scattered among a

variety of public and private organizations. Gaps in information about the use and effectiveness of various public

policies and programs directed at forestland owners are

especially noticeable. For example, little information is

available about forestland owner use of income tax provisions or about returns on public sector investments.

The following information gaps exist:

• Measurement information—It has not been determined

what variables should be measured to describe and evaluate the overall investment climate for forest management. What variables contribute to forestland owner

interest in making long-term investments? How can they

best be described and evaluated? What variables are the

best predictors of changes in the investment climate for

forest management?

• Cumulative effect information—Information has not

been compiled on the extent to which laws, policies,

and programs collectively foster a climate conducive to

investing in forest resources. How do the various taxation, incentive, and regulatory tools collectively influence the extent and overall performance of forest

investment? What is the interdependence of combinations of laws, policies, and programs? Do certain combinations of policy tools work to effectively encourage

or discourage forest investment?
	

• Effectiveness information—Information is incomplete

on how various laws, policies, and programs have influenced forest investment decisions and performance. Do

certain policies really make a difference in the level of

investment in forest resources, or would such investment occur without their existence? Can efficiencies be

gained by modifying the scale of programs designed to

encourage landowner investment in forests? Do we

understand the relative effectiveness of various policy

tools in promoting investment in forests? Do we sufficiently understand the attitudes and perceptions of

forestland owners toward which tax and fiscal incentives

are directed?

• Participation information—Information has not been

assembled on the rate of forestland owner participation

in various programs designed to encourage forest investment. To what extent do forestland owners participate in

various programs designed to encourage long-term

forest investment? How many forestland owners take

full advantage of the various tax provisions available to

them? Do levels of participation reflect only the effectiveness of policy tools, or do they reflect lack of landowner awareness and understanding?

• Investment information—Information on the magnitude

of forest investment has not been compiled. What is the

overall level of investment in forestland? How does forest

investment vary among groupings of private forestland

owners? How do levels of private forest investment

compare with levels of investment in public forests? Are

there regional variations in forestland investment? How

does U.S. investment in forestland compare to that in

other parts of the world? How have investment levels

changed over time?

• Public investment information—Information about

levels of Federal investments in private forests has been

compiled, but information on State-level investments in

private forests is incomplete. What is the current level

of public investment in the management of private forest

resources? How has this level of investment changed

over time? How much do State governments invest in

the management of private forests?

• Encouragement and promotion information—Information has not been assembled about the methods used to

encourage private investment in forestland. What

approaches are used to encourage such private investment? What information is made available to potential

investors and how is it presented? How effective and

efficient are programs for fostering landowner investment? Are certain types of forestland owners more apt

to respond to certain information delivery methods?

How do private forestland owners become aware of

investment opportunities and assistance?

Recommendations

Our ability to determine the extent to which the economic

framework encourages and rewards investment in forest

resources, as suggested by Indicator 58, is limited by a

lack of information in various areas. The information

voids that need to be addressed are considerable. The

following actions seem appropriate:

• Comprehensive periodic reviews. Comprehensive reviews

of the economic climate that supports long-term investment in private forest resources should be conducted

periodically. These reviews should be guided by the

above-suggested information deficiencies and should

give special attention to describing the factors that

contribute to or detract from landowner investments in

forest resources. Compiling information on the numerous programs available to private forestland owners to

assist them in making long-term investments should be

a central part of such an initiative.

• Responsibility for conducting reviews. At present, no

single source of information describes and assesses the

myriad tax laws, cost-share programs, and regulatory

provisions affecting private forest investment. Responsibility for collecting and analyzing this information

should be assigned to a specific unit within a Federal

agency (for example, the USDA Forest Service State

and Private Forestry unit), college, university, or nonprofit organization (for example, the National Association of State Foresters). The organization assigned this

responsibility should have substantial experience and

expertise in conducting analyses and reviews of the

investment climate for forest management.

• Resources needed for reviews. Invest sufficient resources

to conduct reviews that will lead to increased understanding of the economic climate for investing in forest

resources, the factors contributing to this climate, private-sector investment response, and needed policy and

programmatic changes to more effectively promote

sustainable forest management.

Indicator Appropriateness

Indicator Definition

Indicator 58 is an extremely broad statement that encompasses a variety of economic dimensions associated with

forests. The term “investment policies,” as it relates to

promoting sustainable forestry practices, is not defined

adequately. Investment policies can include several components, such as access to capital, investment performance, market access, and resource supply, and the lack of

specificity hampers analysis of information pertinent to

the indicator. Also, many policies that are enacted for



purposes other than the encouragement of forest investment have a direct and often substantial impact on the

investment climate. Specificity regarding the treatment of

information about these policies and programs is needed.

The indicator also refers to “nonmarket valuations” and

“public policy decisions,” and these concepts need clarification. Inclusion of the term “regulatory environment” is

especially troubling, as Indicator 51 explicitly addresses

regulatory laws and programs directed at forcing the application of sustainable forest management practices. And

finally, Indicator 58 does not distinguish between public

and private investment. It appears that the indicator ignores

investments in lands that make up over one-third of the

Nation’s forestland base.

The ability to gather information about economic capacity

suggested by Indicator 58 would be greatly enhanced if

the indicator were better focused and its wording reduced

or modified. One possible approach to a rewording of the

indicator is as follows: “. . . provides for policies and

programs that promote the long-term flow of capital into

and out of public and private forest sectors in response to

changes in market and nonmarket forces.”

Relationship to Other Indicators

Indicator 58 appears to overlap with Indicators 1 and 2

(extent of forestland), 5 (fragmentation), 12 (plantations),

14 (timber removals), 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 (production and consumption), 38 (value of investment), 41 (rates

of return on investment), 42 (area under management), 43

(non-consumptive-use forest values), 44 and 46 (employment and community needs), 48 (property rights), 51

(best-practice codes), 59 (trade policies), 60 (information

and data), 64 (value integrative methods), 65 (new technologies), and 66 (human intervention impacts).

Literature Cited

Bailey, P.D.; Haney, H.L.; Callihan, D.S.; Greene, J.L. 1999. Income tax

considerations for forest landowners in the South: a case study on tax

planning. Journal of Forestry. 97(4): 10-15.

Binkley, C.S.; Raper, C.F.; Washburn, C.L. 1996. Institutional ownership

of U.S. timberland: history, rationale, and implications for forest

management. Journal of Forestry. 94(9): 21-28.

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States: 1994.

Resour. Bull. NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Brockett, C.D.; Gebhard, L. 1999. NIPF tax incentives: do they make a

difference? Journal of Forestry. 97(4): 16-21.

Bullard, S.H.; Straka, T.J. 1988. Structure and funding of state-level costshare programs. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 5: 132-135.

Congressional Information Service. 2000. Agricultural statistics. In:

American Statistics Index: 1996. Washington, DC [Not paged].

Deloitte & Touche. 2002. Taxation in North America. www.dtonline.com/

northamr. Cincinnati, OH [Date accessed: November 2001].

Ellefson, P.V. 1989. Forest resource economics and policy research:

strategic directions for the future. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

403 p.

Ellefson, P.V. 1992. Forest resources policy: process, participants, and

programs. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 504 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.S. 1995. Regulation of private

forestry practices by State governments. Sta. Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. 225 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2001. Programs and organizations affecting the use, management, and protection of forests: an

assessment of agencies located across the organizational landscape of

State governments. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department

of Forest Resources. 119 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Moulton, R.J.; Kilgore, M.A. 2002. An assessment of State

agencies that affect forests. Journal of Forestry. 100(6): 35-42.

Federation of Tax Administrators. 2001. A national summary of State

individual and corporate income tax rates. http://www.taxadmin.org/

fta/rate/tax_stru.html. [Date accessed: November 2001].

Gaddis, D.A.; New, B.D.; Cubbage, F.W.; and others. 1995. Accomplishments and economic evaluations of forestry incentives programs: a

review. Working Pap. 78. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southeastern

Center for Forest Economics Research. 47 p + appendix.

Grayson, A.J. 1993. Private forest policy in western Europe. Wallingford,

UK: CAP International Publishers. 329 p.

Haney, H.L.; Hoover, W.L.; Siegel, W.C.; Greene, J.L. 2001. Forest landowners’ guide to Federal income tax. Agric. Handb. 718. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 157 p.

Heath, L.S.; Birdsey, R.A. 1996. Carbon sequestration on nonindustrial

private forestlands in the U.S. In: Baughman, M.J., ed. Proceedings:

symposium on nonindustrial private forests: learning from the past,

prospects for the future. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota,

Minnesota Extension Service: 326-333.

Hibbard, C.M.; Kilgore, M.A.; Ellefson, P.V. 2001. Property tax programs

focused on forest resources: a review and analysis. Staff Pap. 150. St.

Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources.

78 p.

Kaiser, F.H.; Royer, J.P. 1997. The appropriate role of U.S. Government

programs in fostering U.S. forest investment. In: Schmithusen, F.;

Siegel, W.C., eds. Developments in forest and environmental law

influencing natural resource management and forestry practices in the

United States of America and Canada. IUFRO research group 6.13.00,

Forest law and environmental legislation. Vienna, Austria: International

Union of Forest Research Organizations: 329-335.

Klemperer, W.D. 1989. Taxation of forest products and forest resources.

In: Ellefson, P.V., ed. Forest resource economics and policy research:

strategic directions for the future. Boulder, CO: Westview Press:

276-287.

Klemperer, W.D. 1996. Forest resource economics and finance. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 551 p.


Kuuluvainen, J.; Karppinen, H.; Ovaskainen, V. 1996. Landowner

objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science.

42(3): 300-309.

Meeks, G. 1982. State incentives for nonindustrial private forestry.

Journal of Forestry. 80(1): 18-22.

Minnesota Department of Revenue. 2000. Forestry tax reform: a tax

system that makes sense for Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota

Department of Revenue. [Not paged].

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate

and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2001].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2001].

National Association of State Foresters. 1999. First approximation

assessment report. http://www.stateforesters.org/SFstats.html. [Date

accessed: November 2001].

National Research Council. 1998. Forested landscape in perspective:

prospects and opportunities for sustainable management of America’s

nonfederal forests. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 249 p.

Peters, D.M.; Haney, H.L., Jr.; Greene, L.L. 1998. The effects of federal

and state death and gift taxes on nonindustrial private forestlands in the

Midwestern states. Forest Products Journal. 48(9): 35-44.

Purdue University. 2002. Tax management for timberland ownership:

national timber tax website. http.://www.timbertax.org. [Date accessed:

October 2001].

Sampson, R.N.; DeCoster, L.A. 1997. Public programs for private

forestry: reader on programs and options. Washington, DC: American

Forests. 100 p.

Smith, B.W.; Vissage, J.S.; Darr, D.R.; Sheffiels, R.M. 2001. Forest

resources of the United States: 1997. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-219. St. Paul,

MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Research Station. 190 p. + map.

Sokolow, A.D. 1998. The changing property tax and state-local relations.

Publius. 28(1): 165-197.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency. 2002. Monthly

active CRP contract reports. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/

crp_reports.htm. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. An analysis of the

timber situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Pts I, II, and III. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-199. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station. 268 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001a. 2000 assessment

of forest and range lands. FS-687. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 78 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001b. State and private

forestry, cooperative forestry programs. http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/

programs/loa/index.shtml. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

2001. Conservation programs. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

NRCSProg.html. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2002. Federal estate tax program. http://

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i706.pdf. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. Endangered Species Act: information on species protection on nonfederal lands. GAO/RCED-95-16.

Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, Resources,

Community, and Economic Development Division. 29 p.

Virginia Department of Forestry. 2001. Conservation Incentive Program

fact sheet. vipnet.org/dof. [Date accessed: November 2001].

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p.

Wigley, T.B.; Melchiors, M.A. 1987. State wildlife management programs

for private lands. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15:580-584.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Private landowner

forestry assistance program guide. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us. Madison,

WI. [Date accessed: November 2001].

Yin, R.; Izlar, B. 2001. Supply contract portfolio insurance: applying

financial engineering to institutional timberland investment. Journal of

Forestry. 99(5): 39-44.


Appendix

Forestry Cost-Share Programs Implemented by State Governments

Program title and description

Alabama Agricultural and Conservation Development Program (1985): 60 percent for tree planting, site preparation, and

timber stand improvement; funding level: $750,000 per year; funding source: general State revenue.

California Forest Improvement Program (1980): 75 percent for site preparation, reforestation, stand improvement, planning,

and fish and wildlife habitat improvement; funding level: (*); funding source: revenue from sale of State forest timber.

Illinois Forest Development Programs (1983): 83 percent for tree planting, site preparation, and timber stand improvement;

funding level: (*); funding source: 4 percent timber harvest fee.

Iowa Woodland Fencing Program (1985): 50 percent for fencing of forestland subject to soil loss from grazing; funding

level: (*); funding source: general State revenue.

Louisiana Forest Productivity Program (1998): 50 percent for reforestation and timber stand improvement; funding level:

$4.1 million/year; funding source: timber severance tax.

Maryland Woodland Incentives Program (1986): 50 percent for reforestation and timber stand improvement; funding level:

(*); funding source: 4 to 5 percent tax on wooded lands transferred to nonagricultural use valuations for property taxes.

Minnesota Forestry Improvement Program (1985): 65 percent for fencing and firebreaks and 50 percent for road

construction; funding level: (*); funding source: general State revenue.

Mississippi Forest Resources Development Program (1974): 50 to 75 percent for reforestation and timber stand

improvement; funding level: $3 million; funding source: timber harvest tax.

Missouri Soil and Water Conservation Program (1985): 75 percent for tree planting and fencing; funding level: (*), funding

source: .001 percent sales tax fee.

New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program (1986): 50 percent for plantation establishment, site preparation, and stand

improvement; funding level: (*); funding source: State bond fund.

North Carolina Forest Development Program (1978): 40 to 60 percent for tree planting, site preparation, and stand

improvement; funding level: $2.2 million per year; funding source: timber harvest tax and general State revenue.

South Carolina Forest Renewal Program (1981): 40 percent for reforestation, stand improvement, and prescribed burning;

funding level: $660,000 per year; funding source: timber harvest tax and general State revenue.

Tennessee Reforestation Incentives Program (1997): 50 percent for reforestation and timber stand improvement; funding

level: $160,000 per year; funding source: real estate transfer receipts.

Texas Reforestation Foundation Program (1981): 50 percent for reforestation practices; funding level: $350,000 per year;

funding source: voluntary forest industry assessment on primary forest products.

Virginia Reforestation Timberland Program (1970): 40 percent for site preparation, tree planting, and stand improvement;

funding level: $2.2 million per year; funding source: harvest tax and general State revenue.

Wisconsin Forest Landowner Grant Program (1980s): 65 percent for land management plans, tree planting, and stand

improvement; funding level: (*); funding source: (*).

Note: Asterisk indicates information is not readily available.

Source: Bullard and Straka (1988); Meeks (1982); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2001b).


The full text of Indicator 59 is as follows: Extent to which

economic frameworks (economic policies and measures)

support the conservation and sustainable management of

forests through non-discriminatory trade policies for

forest products (Montreal Process Working Group 2003).

Rationale and Interpretation

The interpretation of Indicator 59 reflects the assumption

that free trade and nondiscriminatory trade advance sustainable management of forests. This review of information

and information-gathering capacity will not question this

premise. Measures of the indicator over time should capture domestic trade policy impacts and trends of imports

and exports in order to promote transparency in implementing trade policy. Indicator measures should capture also

the use of tariff barriers (import and export duties), nontariff barriers (subsidies, export controls, below-market

wages, transportation costs) and other factors that distort

domestic and international markets. These types of distortions can lead to deforestation and forest degradation by

providing strong disincentives to sustainable forest management. In addition, policies that distort the marketplace can

obscure an understanding of factors, such as economic

costs and benefits, affecting resource allocation and environmental impacts (Montreal Process Technical Advisory

Committee 2000, Montreal Process Working Group 2003,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1997).

There are positive effects that can be associated with

increased trade liberalization that would likely result from

nondiscriminatory trade policies. One positive effect of

trade liberalization is to increase investments in sustainable forest management. Reduced trade barriers and costs

allow investors to shift resources from the payment of

penalties and duties to enhancement of product quality,

including environmental quality, in order to successfully

compete in current global markets.

Indicator Appropriateness

Nondiscriminatory trade can be significantly influenced

by the will of governments to encourage a competitive and

fair market for domestic industries. Sustainable forest

management is enhanced by the prospect of fair and competitive markets for forest products. Countries that develop

a significant international trade for their forest products

industries rely on national policies to promote competitive

participation in global markets through support for international agreements on the rules of trade.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) serves as the lead

international institution that facilitates trade by setting

guidelines and policies for dispute resolution and trade

development among member countries (World Trade

Organization 2001). The WTO and its member countries

have defined nondiscriminatory trade practices as those

practices that do not apply unequal treatment to imports

from different trading partners “as through preferential

tariff rates for imports from particular countries or trade

restrictions that apply to the exports of certain countries

but not to similar goods from other countries.” Nondiscriminatory trade as referred to by Indicator 59 implies

tariff and nontariff effects on trade in wood products.

Nonwood forest resources that are traded and whose

management contributes to sustainable forest management

are not included in this review because of the difficulty in

tracking, by trade data codes, wood material in other product categories such as horticulture, food, and chemical

products. The WTO Ministerial Declaration of 2001 establishes three priorities under the trade and environment

section as: (1) a foundation of multilateral environmental

agreements with respect to scope and application of regulations; (2) encouragement of information exchange and

observer inputs; and (3) reduction or elimination of nontariff and tariff barriers (World Trade Organization 2001).

Conceptual Background

Nondiscriminatory trade practices form a crucial element

of a country’s overall trade policy with regard to sustainable economic development and sustainable resource

management. The promotion of free and fair trade requires

mutual cooperation and exchange among countries. It also

thrives under the reciprocal openness of borders under

agreed-upon international frameworks and institutions

(Barbier and others 1994).

Trade practices can have indirect and direct effects on economic, social, and environmental elements of a country.

Direct discriminatory practices are usually specific applications of tariffs that limit the flow of goods between

countries. Provisions under the WTO and other trade

1 Ingram, Economic Policy Analyst, and Hicks, Coordinator of Trade

Policy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, International

Programs and Foreign Agricultural Service, Washington, DC.

Forest Products Trade (Indicator 59)

C. Denise Ingram and Michael Hicks1


agreements result in a level of monitoring and in assessments of the legitimacy of trade systems. Other practices,

however, are not as clear-cut. The most-favored-nation

(MFN) status, for example, is bestowed upon a country

that the U.S. finds to have the capacity and political will

to participate in trade resulting in the reduction or elimination of tariffs (U.S. Department of State 2002a, 2002b).

However, some countries interpret the selection of specific

countries for MFN status as a form of indirect discrimination toward the non-MFN countries.

Several types of nontariff barriers may have indirect effects

on trade. Subsidies by a government (i.e., tax incentives,

research and development investments) can also be interpreted as barriers to free trade and a challenge to economic

development. Categories of indirect measures that are

indicative of trade imbalances include quantitative restrictions, measures influencing prices, health and technical

standards, customs and administrative entry procedures,

trade agreements, and ocean freight charges and regulations (Bourke 1988). Assessment of these barriers and

indirect measures requires a complex of data that reflect

domestic actions under, and reactions to U.S. trade policy.

U.S. Agency Trade Responsibility

The United States participates globally to develop policies

that support nondiscriminatory practices in forest products

trade. A variety of domestic institutions have responsibilities and mandates for trade activities and strategies. U.S.

leadership in the coordination of these agencies and programs increasingly reflects environmental linkages to

trade, and especially to trade in products from natural

resources.

The U.S. agency primarily responsible for trade negotiations and Federal trade policy is the Office of the U.S.

Trade Representative (USTR). The USTR administers trade

policy as mandated by the executive branch of government.

Department-level government agencies are represented

through committee appointments to draft trade policy

statements and trade agreements, and to carry out trade

mandates according to guiding legislation and Executive

order. Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements fall

within the purview of the USTR. A brief history of major

trade policy developments provides a context for U.S.

interpretations of trade priorities and strategies.

The U.S. Tariff Commission was established in 1916, and

within the next decade, the concept of the most-favorednation principle was formally instituted as part of the basic

foundation of U.S. trade policy (U.S. Department of State

2002a, 2000b). The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of

1934 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gave the President the authority to further trade policy through bilateral

and multilateral negotiations. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 provided authority for U.S. participation in the initial rounds of the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade (GATT) held in Geneva, Switzerland in

1947. A GATT report in 1971 recommended a push for

major trade negotiations, which took place at the Tokyo

round of GATT in 1973. In 1975 the International Trade

Commission (ITC) evolved from the former U.S. Tariff

Commission in conjunction with the signing of the U.S.

Trade Act of 1974 (U.S. Department of State 2002a,

2000b). The first United Nations (UN) session on trade

and employment established the International Trade

Organization (established in 1946), as an initiative submitted by the United States (U.S. Department of State

2002a, 2000b). The UN further facilitates the global

dialogue on trade through the sessions of the UN

Commission on Trade and Development.

Policy Trends Affecting Trade

Trade policy developments that affect the forestry and

forest products sector favorably include those that result in

increased transparency, effective governance (trade capacity), and environmental monitoring. Reliable and timely

data must exist in order for countries to analyse the linkages between trade policies and the sustainability of forest

resources production and consumption. In 1996, the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System was

applied to the Standard International Trade Classification

(SITC) system. This reflected the expanding number and

types of traded products, including forest products (U.S.

International Trade Commission 2002). This development

makes it easier to track trade in forest products and to

understand the effects of technological change on this

trade.

Illegal logging, illegal wood trade, and associated corruption can be interpreted as nontariff barriers to trade. The

tracking of illegal trade in forest products can draw lessons

from the experiences of the Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of 1973. Through scientific

study and open debate among its members, the Convention

“regulates the international trade in wild animals and

plants and their products when it is determined that this

trade does, or potentially could, threaten their survival in

the wild.” The difficulties inherent in tracking and monitoring trade flows of forest products may invite increased

investments in circumvention and corruption, and the costs

of gross distortions in market dynamics that result from

illegal activities are borne unsustainably by the resource

base.

There are concerns that the adoption of certification systems by governments may result in nontariff barriers to

trade. Systems of certification require that forest resource


management meet certain standards so that the products

made from those resources are considered environmentally

friendly. Most certification programs are private-sector

initiatives. Companies use them as marketing tools in order

to enhance their environmental image. The U.S. Government does not have a policy on certification. In the United

States, various national and subnational laws and regulations provide a reasonable and effective system of promoting sustainable forest management on public lands, while

certification remains a voluntary private-market initiative.

Open Access to Markets

Owners of forest resources will not invest in sustainable

management of those resources unless they have reasonable

assurance that their investments will have a fair and competitive chance of paying off. Those who depend on international trade in forest products for financial success must

have government leadership in forming international policies that encourage free and fair trade. Trade must be based

upon nondiscriminatory policies that can be reciprocated

by other countries that serve as export markets.

Compliance with Tariff Reductions

A general goal of international trade agreements is to strive

toward continually reduced tariffs on forest products. The

reduction of tariffs is usually negotiated and phased in

over a period of time. When tariffs are reduced, markets

become more competitive (assuming no other barriers or

nontariff discriminatory practices are put in place), trade

increases, and economic development opportunities expand

for participating countries. The United States currently has

little to no tariff on forest products imported from most

countries.

Effects of Domestic Subsidies on Trade

Countries that provide subsidies to an industry increase

the lack of will and decrease the opportunity for industry

members to participate in markets under normal decisionmaking. Subsidies mask market dynamics, and participants

need information about market dynamics in order to make

good business decisions. A lack of data on market dynamics thus reduces the likelihood of success and therefore

reduces the production and income potential for the

country.

Labor Costs and Investment

Higher labor costs in any given sector influence various

business decisions, including the location of production

units, and thus influence the flow of goods. Lower labor

costs in conjunction with the raw material costs of production influence the movement of investment from one

country to another. Industries will take advantage of lower

labor costs to produce similar goods at lower cost, thereby

increasing profit margins. The impact of production location choices directly influences which resources will be

selected as raw material for wood processing. The ability

of a country to sustainably meet raw material resource

demands is directly affected by decisions for investments

by the industry. Increased investments in a country due to

lower labor costs can result in a greater strain on local

resources. Likewise, countries that maintain higher labor

costs in a developed and technologically advanced industry will influence the shift of investments to areas where

costs are lower. Meanwhile, the higher income populations

may now have the luxury of “purchasing” other forest

products and services in the form of leisure activities,

environmental concerns and support, asset management,

and other cultural, religious, and social activities that

reflect and promote sustainable forest management.

Current Conditions

The consumption and trade of forest products has increased

approximately fourfold in real terms over the last 30 years,

and is projected to increase further in the years ahead.

Forest products are broadly defined to include unprocessed

wood products (for example, chips, logs, lumber) as well

as highly processed wood products (for example, fiberboard, plywood) and paper products (for example, printing

and writing paper). According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, world trade (imports and exports) of

forest products totaled more than $300 billion in 2000.

Canada, the United States, Finland, Germany, and Sweden

account for 50 percent of forest-product exports. The

United States, along with four other countries (Germany,

Japan, China, and the United Kingdom), account for

almost 45 percent of forest-product imports.

In 2001, the value of new construction in the United States

increased by 5.6 percent over the 2000 level, to $861

billion, in large part due to the strength of the residential

construction market. Residential construction traditionally

accounts for a significant portion of the softwood lumber

and structural panel products consumed annually in the

United States. Residential housing starts totaled 1.60

million units in 2001, compared to 1.57 million units in

2000. Not surprisingly, consumption of many constructionrelated wood products increased in 2001. However, a nearrecord level of imports ($15.1 billion) kept prices of wood

products generally lower in 2001 in spite of the strong

construction market. Imports of softwood lumber, primarily from Canada, and structural panel products from

Canada, Brazil, and Chile accounted for almost one-half

of total imports on a value basis (Howard 2001a).


Canada remains the dominant provider of softwood lumber

imports into the United States at a share of approximately

94 percent, but other countries in Europe and elsewhere

have slowly increased their participation in this market.

Hardwood lumber imports declined slightly in 2001 on a

value basis compared to the previous year’s sharp increases.

Other solid wood products exhibited similar fluctuations,

notably imports of softwood plywood, oriented strand

board, hardwood plywood, and fiberboard products. Paper

and paperboard imports continue to show increases at the

beginning of this decade (Howard 2001a, 2001b).

Given the high level of consumption of wood products in

this country, imports play a significant role in forest products trade. Imports of industrial roundwood (much of it

from Canada) surged during the past decade, increasing

from 246,000 cubic meters in 1991 to 6.992 million cubic

meters in 1999 as the United States experienced an extended

period of unprecedented economic growth, near-record

housing starts, and reduced availability of Federal timber

in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. (Industrial roundwood is

defined as sawlogs, veneer logs, pulpwood, chips and

particles, and wood residues.)

Imports have also been the center of several trade disputes,

most notably with Canada. The softwood lumber dispute

with Canada is one of our most complex and longest running bilateral trade disputes, dating back to October 27,

1982. There have been repeated countervailing duty investigations into alleged Canadian subsidies in the softwood

lumber sector. Consultations in late 1994 and early 1995

led to the U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement. The

agreement, which was signed on May 29, 1996, was retroactive to April 1, 1996. On April 2, 2001, immediately

following the expiration of the agreement, the Coalition

for Fair Lumber Imports (and others) filed countervailing

duty and antidumping petitions with the Department of

Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. International Trade Commission. On March 22, 2002, the DOC announced its final

subsidy determination, finding a subsidy rate of 18.79 percent. The DOC also found that Canadian companies were

selling products into the U.S. market at below fair-market

value, and imposed antidumping duties ranging from 2.18

to 12.44 percent. Products manufactured in the Maritime

Provinces are exempt from the countervailing duty, as are

products of certain manufacturers who rely entirely on

logs from the Maritimes or Maine. On May 2, the ITC

announced its final injury determination, finding a threat

of material injury in both the countervailing duty and

antidumping investigations of Canadian softwood lumber.

Overall, however, the United States has some of the lowest

tariff rates in the world (U.S. International Trade Commission 2002). From 1989 to 1999, average U.S. tariffs on all

primary goods remained stable at about 2.0 percent and

declined from 6.1 percent to 4.2 percent for manufactured

goods. Only countries such as Singapore, Australia, Hong

Kong, and Switzerland had lower (or zero) tariffs or similar declines during that same period. Examples of general

U.S. wood-products tariffs range from mostly zero to 8

percent on some plywood products (U.S. International

Trade Commission 2002).

After a modest increase in 2000, U.S. wood-products

exports declined sharply in 2001, from $6.2 billion in

2000 to $5.2 billion in 2001, because of continued weak

economic conditions in Japan and several other Asian markets. U.S. wood-products exporters were also hurt by the

strong dollar. Significant declines were registered in most

markets and most product sectors in 2001. China was the

only major market to show any degree of strength in 2001.

U.S. producers are increasingly facing increased competition at home and abroad, not only from longtime competitors like Canada and Northern Europe but also from

producers in Estonia, Latvia, Chile, Malaysia, and Brazil.

With the breakup of the former Soviet Union, Estonia and

Latvia have emerged as two of the leading suppliers of

logs, chips, and, lumber. Russia has reemerged as a leading producer and exporter of logs. Russian exports of logs

and chips totaled 27.4 million cubic meters in 1999, primarily to Finland, China, and Japan. U.S. exports of softwood logs to Japan have dropped by more than 60 percent

during the past decade. Nevertheless, were it not for the

United States’ plant health regulations requiring heat treatment of unprocessed wood products prior to import, it is

quite possible that the United States would also be a significant importer of Russian logs. The economics are such

that heat treatment is not a commercially viable option.

A similar situation can be seen in other commodities. The

United States is the world’s largest producer of lumber and

plywood, but, even here, U.S. producers are facing increasing competition. Finland has doubled its plywood production over the past decade. China, Malaysia, and Brazil now

account for almost one-quarter of the world’s plywood

production. Brazilian softwood plywood producers are even

beginning to make some inroads into the U.S. domestic

market. And as noted earlier, we are seeing more and more

softwood lumber in the U.S. market from European suppliers (Austria, Finland, Germany, and Sweden), as well as

from Chile and New Zealand.

Relationship to Other Indicators

Other Montreal Process indicators that overlap Indicator

59 include Indicator 38 (value of investments), Indicator

44 (employment), Indicator 45 (average wage rates),

Indicator 46 (community viability), and Indicator 48


(appropriate land tenure). Each of these will reflect

responses to trade flows that are dependent on forest

resource supply and management decision making in the

United States.

Information Adequacy

The United States has a long history of trade and economic development research, both in academia and in

Federal agencies. However, the lack of a clear guiding

national strategy for trade analysis is shown by the

existence of autonomous trade research in forestry and

forest products.

Measuring this indicator involves social and political

difficulties. For example, domestic antitrust laws govern

the sharing or discussion of individual company data.

Responses to trade actions are often divided along philosophical and pragmatic lines, such as those between producers and consumers, developers and environmentalists,

and various other stakeholders.

There is not yet a clear and coordinated priority in the

United States to commit resources to the measurement of

economic and institutional trade issues. A shift in priorities will be required to provide the level of consistent,

comprehensive, and national-level trade analysis necessary

to contribute to the knowledge of overall trade policies

and their impacts.

One problem is that studies and analyses are available, but

no one public entity has responsibility for tracking or

compiling information and measurements. Some of the

hurdles we face are finding, identifying, and assessing the

conclusions of the various reports and studies in order to

establish a minimal level of consistent tracking of trade

developments and impacts. Neither the USDA Forest

Service nor any other Federal agency has a mandate to

undertake these reviews; however, we anticipate a push to

build these analyses into future work as international trade

issues demand increased attention and debate.

Recommendations

Early analysis of the status of Indicator 59 suggests that

there is increased interest in understanding the linkages

between trade and impacts on the environment in the

United States. The United States has the world’s most

complete compilations of national trade data, and a variety

of public and private institutions compile and analyze

components of trade activities and trends. The efforts vary

and are in many ways disjointed, thus projecting a lessthan-national emphasis on comprehensive trade strategies.

Moreover, the United States has only a recent history of

adopting institutional strategies or guidance to ensure

consistent implementation of trade analyses reflecting

environmental and resource management impacts.

The most current effort of this kind is the 1999 Executive

Order 13141 that requires the Council on Environmental

Quality and the U.S. Trade Representative to conduct an

environmental review of all natural resource trade agreements, both bilateral and multilateral (U.S. Trade Representative 1999a). Implementation of the new trade policy

will contribute data and methodologies to assist in the

measurement of Indicator 59 in the future.

Data Analysis and Approaches

The analysis of trade data goes beyond direct measurement

of trade flow changes and market implications. It is difficult to assess whether a country’s economic framework

will fully support sustainable forest management if measures such as the internalizing of costs and benefits are not

provided. Many of the current analytical approaches are

designed to reflect, albeit on aggregate levels, the implications of trade policy changes through the linkages of

social and environmental variables that reflect sustainable

forest management characteristics.

The most common approaches to analysis of trade data are

spatial equilibrium econometric models that reflect historical and projected trends under alternative policy and

technology scenarios (Boyd 1983). Expertise in trade

research is available at institutions such as the Center for

International Trade in Forest Products, the University of

Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Washington, and

Purdue University. The United States is also a member of

the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

research collaboration on global forest-sector analysis,

including trade. One of the more recent applications of

forest products trade analysis is the Accelerated Tariff

Liberalization study, conducted by the U.S. Government

and collaborating universities (U.S. Trade Representative

1999b). This is a one-time study of the potential impacts

of reductions in tariff rates on forest products in the AsiaPacific region, including environmental implications

reflected in the projections of changing harvest levels.

Analytical approaches require the establishment of a baseline of data and information that, in itself, is a valuable

measure of trade potential and the underlying resource

requirements to reach that potential. How do those requirements affect sustainable forest management goals and

possibilities? Trade models allow the analysis of policy

impacts, such as the effects of removal of tariffs (trade

liberalization), on trade flows and related resource supply

and management opportunities.


The political sensitivity of trade is analyzed by approaches

that use content analyses of news articles, public response

to trade issues, and other social drivers that influence

decisions which, in turn, are linked to sustainable forest

management potential. More recently, some qualitative

studies tracked developments in the United States and

other countries with regard to certification schemes and

their potential to serve as nontariff barriers. Case studies

are also used to gain an understanding of various countries’ trade capacity developments in order to preview

potential effects of U.S. trade policy changes on sustainable forest management.

• Data analysis and requirements—What variable or

combination of variables can be used for measuring the

effectiveness or existence of nondiscriminatory trade

policies for forest products? Like many other institutional indicators, the information required goes beyond

strictly quantifiable data. Although much of this information exists, it has not been analyzed in such a way as

to measure this indicator adequately. For this reason, the

discussion of applicable data suggests not only the type

of data but also the need for strategic analytical

approaches to processing that data.

• Annual import and export data—Time series analysis of

basic annual import and export data for the United States

would provide a foundation for following trends in trade

flows and would reflect changes in trade policies or specific trade actions. Trade data coupled with production

data also provides a basis for determining consumption

patterns as a link to supply trends and to the potential

for sustainable forest management.

• Technical barriers to trade—The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, established under the WTO,

requires members of the WTO to ensure that their legal

and regulatory guidelines do not constitute barriers to

free trade. An analysis of compliance of forest products

standards with the Code of Good Practice of the agreement would provide a view of U.S. commitment to

nondiscriminatory trade policies in forest products

(International Organization for Standardization 2002).

• Domestic legislation affecting trade—A survey of

domestic legislation affecting trade would identify the

legislative and regulatory provisions that encourage or

discourage nondiscriminatory trade policies for forest

products. Four pieces of legislation provide examples:

(1) the Jones Act of 1920, which provides regulation of

intercoastal shipping of goods such as lumber, thus

affecting resource demand and supply balances both

domestically and with neighboring producers (Boyd

1983); (2) the Forest Resource Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990 prohibits exports of raw logs

from Federal land harvests in the western region (west

of the 100th meridian) (U.S. Code 1993); (3) the Export

Trading Company Act of 1982, which promotes the

development of export trading associations and the

expansion of export trade in general (U.S. Code 1982);

and (4) the Foreign Sales Corporation Act, which

provides tax reduction incentives to U.S. companies

operating in other countries in order to promote exports

by relieving the tax on some of the profits from those

exports (Export FSC International 2002).

• Countervailing, antidumping, and safeguard actions—

The World Trade Organization and regional trade agreements generally allow for individual parties to maintain

discretion in the development and application of domestic

trade laws and regulations. A tally of actions by the

United States under appropriate laws would not in itself

identify less than nondiscriminatory practices regarding

trade imports. Successful challenges to the application

of domestic trade regulations could occur through bilateral, regional, or WTO provisions. There is a need for

analysis of the trends in the number of countervailing

duty, antidumping, and safeguard actions by the United

States for forest products. This information would show

the extent to which the United States issues bilateral

actions under domestic laws that might be challenged as

discriminatory or prohibitive to free trade.

• Invasive and alien species—Invasive and alien species

increasingly threaten the full range of biological, social,

and economic values that are derived from forest

resources. A 1999 study at Cornell University (Environmental News Network 1999) estimated that the United

States suffers approximately $123 billion in damage

annually from alien species of insects, diseases, and

other nonindigenous species. Under international trade

laws and agreements, countries have the right to set

standards for safety and health. The challenge within

the context of sustainable forest management is to

maintain sustainability with adequate protection, while

not reducing sustainability by adopting discriminatory

trade that leads to conversion of forest resources to

nonforest uses. Sanitary and phytosanitary regulations

could constitute barriers to trade or be applied in a

discriminatory fashion. An analysis of the number of

actions by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that affect trade in the United States would

provide a measure of potential discriminatory policies.

• Cross-sectoral influences on trade policies—External

influences on trade in forest products include policies

and trends in other sectors such as agriculture, transportation, commerce, and environment. Such linkages are

difficult to define and quantify, but increased analysis of

cross-sector impacts on the forestry and forest products

sectors are needed because these influences often result

in land-use changes and often increase the opportunity

costs of holding land in forest cover.
	

• Environmental measures to affect forest management—

Within the last decade, producers and owners of forest

resources have made increasing use of environmental

certification as a marketing device. Quantitative research

in the area of certification is, however, lacking for the

forest products sector (International Tropical Timber

Organization 1990).

• Tariff liberalization—The trade policy of the United

States has consistently promoted free trade throughout

various administrations. There is, however, a growing

debate on the net impacts of trade on natural resources

and environmental goals. Does tariff liberalization in

the forest-products sector encourage unsustainable

forestry practices in individual countries? Does tariff

liberalization promote efficient use of resources so that

increased investment leads to high levels of conservation and the ability to afford the costs of environmental

protection? Few studies have provided conclusive

insight into this debate. Several leading econometric

studies of national, regional, and global forest-products

trade have included analyses of the environmental

impacts of shifts in trade flows, and especially of shifts

in production levels (i.e., harvesting) that may occur as

a result of the projected trade flows. These and other

issues could be addressed by future empirical work in

this area, and the results of this work would provide

data on the extent to which U.S. trade policies promote

sustainable forest management.

• Internalized costs and benefits—Internalized costs and

benefits may affect the final results of environmental

impact analyses. Trade data and related information are

often provided at relatively high levels of aggregation.

Thus, analyses of trade policies and their impacts are

difficult to complete for specific issues or concerns.

Often, the total benefits and costs associated with trade

policy changes do not include environmental values

such as biodiversity benefits or net positive carbonstorage shifts.

• NAFTA environmental agreement—The North American

Free Trade Agreement contains guidelines and rules for

actions under an environmental “side” agreement

(NAFTA Secretariat 2002). This trilateral trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico

was implemented in 1994 to remove barriers to trade and

investment among the three countries. Under NAFTA,

the challenge is to strike a balance between free trade

and investment and the promotion of domestic economic development. The environmental agreement

provides for challenges to a party’s level of enforcement

and administration of its domestic environmental laws.

The number of actions taken against the United States

under the side agreement would indicate not only the

strength of U.S. environmental and trade laws, but also

the effectiveness of these laws through enforcement.

Sustainable forest management goals could be directly

affected by the degree to which the United States applies

its own environmental legislation and regulations.

• Consistency and priority of nontariff measures—A variety of nontariff measures such as quotas, investment

incentives, and tax credits may reflect less than nondiscriminatory commitments to free and fair trade by a

country. An analysis of U.S. nontariff measures in the

forest products sector, and trends in their use over time,

would provide additional understanding of the extent to

which our commitments to nondiscriminatory trade are

consistent and are given priority. For example, data and

analysis of U.S. subsidies in the forestry and forest

products sector (for example, for trucking and road

construction) could identify areas in need of further

enhancement of competitiveness to support fair trade.

• National and subnational procurement requirements—

The procurement requirements of national and local

governments underscore the linkage between consumption choices for products made from forest resources

and the sustainability limits of exporting countries. The

percentage of recycled content used in paper products

and in certified wood content are two examples of how

procurement policies may reflect goals. At the same

time, these policies can be considered nontariff barriers

that constitute discriminatory trade policies if they are

targeting specific countries or regions.

• Domestic processing requirements—One commonly

perceived trade barrier is the implementation of a country’s regulations regarding processing requirements.

These requirements ensure that there is employment and

income for labor, while adding value to industries through

the promotion of downstream processing. Increased

internal processing of wood can reduce demand for logs

per unit of output with increased wood recovery and

multiple product outputs. On the other hand, increased

capacities in wood processing and attractive foreign

exchange from exports of downstream products may

encourage unsustainable harvest levels, thus contributing to unsustainable forest-management practices. An

understanding of domestic processing requirements will

indicate potential policy applications linked to unsustainable or unfair trade.

• Bilateral trade agreements—Bilateral trade agreements

are an increasingly common means of fostering free and

fair trade, cooperation, and partnerships for addressing

mutual goals in a region or with neighboring countries.

These agreements also enable countries to anticipate

and make adjustments for the impacts of trade flows and

changes. Thus, countries can make specific provisions

for monitoring and assessing progress toward economic,

social, and environment objectives. The implementation

of U.S. Executive Order 13141 adds a new dimension to

and enhances the development of trade agreements.


Institutional Links to Data Inadequacy

The inadequacies of data to support measurement of nondiscriminatory trade policy linkages to sustainable forest

management range from a simple lack of data or data

collection to more complicated institutional developments

that require strategic planning of data and information

management. Some data are not being collected, even

though their collection would be consistent with the mission

of existing public agencies or other institutions. In other

cases, the data are collected but coverage is inadequate or

the protocol for data collection must be changed to provide more relevant and informative data. Institutional

decisions must be made with regard to the existing data

gaps in areas such as:

• Tracking forested areas under certification schemes:

No single entity is compiling this information.

• External costs and benefits that are not being internalized: Data are not collected or are not under any institution’s control; methodologies and linkages are not

well understood.

• External influences on trade policy: Uncertainty of the

extent to which policy is implemented.

• Number of nontariff barriers: A one-time study, not

conducted regularly enough or with adequate coverage.

• Impacts of tariff liberalization: A one-time study, not

conducted on a regular basis.

• Number of Animal & Plant Health inspection service

actions: Need systems in place to track regularly. These

actions are published in the Federal Register, but no one

entity has a mandate to summarize them.

• Survey of domestic trade legislation: Protocol changes

are required to meet the needs of users. It is possible that

these changes come under multiple agency missions,

but it is not clear which ones.

Applicable Data and Data Sources

Sources of data that indicate the level and impacts of

nondiscriminatory trade policies in the United States are

described in table 1. The listing is not all-inclusive, but

Table 1—Organizational sources of information for assessing nondiscriminatory trade policies in the United States

Organization Description of data On-line access

United States Customs Tariff schedules www.customs.ustreas.gov

International Trade Commission Countervailing, antidumping, and www.usitc.gov

safeguard actions database,

competitive studies

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Country studies of nontariff barriers, www.apec.org

tariff rates

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Import-export data www.fasonline.gov

International Tropical Timber Studies on certification and labeling www..or.jp/inside/download/

Organization of wood products Certification_Schemes.doc

World Trade Organization Trade policy reviews by country www.wto.org

North American Forestry Commission Data not described www.fs.fed.us/global/nafc/

welcome.html

North American Free Trade Act, Country reports www.nafta-sec-alena.org

Commission on Environmental

Cooperation

Department of Commerce, Industry database on value of www.census.gov/epcd/www/

Bureau of Census shipments, employment, wages 97EC31.HTM

USDA Forest Service, Periodic publications on trade, www.fpl.fs.fed.us/econ/

Forest Products Laboratory consumption, production, and prices Publications.htm#Stat

World Bank Trade databases, country reports, www.worldbank.com

tariff statistics


does represent the majority of the national sources of

critical data and information for the analyses suggested

above.

Literature Cited

Barbier, E.B.; Burgess, J.C.; Bishop, J.; Aylward, B. 1994. The economics

of the tropical timber trade. London, UK: Earthscan Publications, Ltd.

179 p.

Bourke, I.J. 1988. Trade restrictions and their impacts on international

trade in forest products. Rome, Italy: United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization, Department of Forestry. 140 p.

Boyd, R. 1983. Lumber transport and the Jones Act: A multicommodity

spatial equilibrium analysis. Bell Journal of Economics. 14 (1):

202-212.

Environmental News Network. 1999. Alien species destroying U.S. ecosystems. In: Pimentel, D. [and others]. Environmental and economic

costs associated with non-indigenous species in the United States.

[Environmental News Network: January 26, 1999]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. [Not paged].

Export FSC International. 2002. About Export Foreign Sales Corporation

International. http://www.exportfsc.com/. [Date accessed: November

2001].

Howard, J.L. 2001a. U.S. timber production, trade, consumption, and

price statistics. Res. Pap. FPL-F\RP-595. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 90 p.

Howard, J.L. 2001b. U.S. Forest products annual market review and

prospects, 1999-2002. Res. Note FPL-RN-0282. Madison, WI: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.

5 p.

International Organization for Standardization. 2002. Background to the

Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. Geneva, Switzerland:

International Organization for Standardization. [Not paged].

International Tropical Timber Organization, 1990. Guidelines for the sustainable management of natural tropical forests. http://www.itto.or.jp/

policy/PolicyDevelopmentarchive.html. [Date accessed: November

2001].

Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate

and boreal forests: criterion seven. http://www.mpci.org/tac/mexico/

tn7_e.html. [Date accessed: February 2002].

Montreal Process Working Group. 2003. The Montreal process. http://

www.mpci.org/. [Date accessed: February 2002].

NAFTA Secretariat. 2002. North American free trade agreement. http://

www.nafta-sec-alena.org/english/index.htm

U.S. Code. 1982. Export Company Trading Act of 1982. Public Law

97-290, October 8, 1982.

U.S. Code. 1993. Forest Resource Conservation and Shortage Act of

1990. Public Law 101-382. 16 U.S.C. 620-620j, August 20, 1990 (as

amended 1993).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. First approximation report for sustainable forest management: report of the United

States on the criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of

temperate and boreal forests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 220 p.

U.S. Department of State. 2002a. The language of trade: chronology of

major trade developments affecting United States trade policy. http://

usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/language/chron.txt. [Date accessed:

November 2001].

U.S. Department of State. 2002b. Information services bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. [Not paged].

U.S. International Trade Commission. 2002. Harmonized tariff schedule

of the United States (2002) (Rev. 1) http://usitc.gov/wais/reports/arc/

hts2002.htm. [Date accessed: November 2001].

U.S. Trade Representative. 1999a. The Executive order on environmental

reviews - November 1999. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

http://www.ustr.gov/environment/environmental.shtml. [Date accessed:

November 2001].

U.S. Trade Representative. 1999b. Accelerated tariff liberalization in the

forest products sector: a study of the economic and environmental

effects. http://www.ustr.gov/releases/1999/11/forest.pdf. [Date

accessed: November 2001].

World Trade Organization. 2001. DOHA WTO ministerial 2001: ministerial declaration. WT/MIN(01)/Dec/1. 20 November 2001. Geneva,

Switzerland: World Trade Organization. http://docsonline.wto.org.

[Date accessed: November 2001].
222

Ellefson, Paul V.; Hibbard, Calder M.; Kilgore, Michael A.; Granskog, James E., eds.

2005. Legal, institutional, and economic indicators of forest conservation and

sustainable management: review of information available for the United States. Gen.

Tech. Rep. SRS-82. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Research Station. 221 p.

This review looks at the Nation’s legal, institutional, and economic capacity to promote

forest conservation and sustainable resource management. It focuses on 20 indicators of

Criterion Seven of the so-called Montreal Process and involves an extensive search and

synthesis of information from a variety of sources. It identifies ways to fill information

gaps and improve the usefulness of several indicators. It concludes that there is

substantial information about the application of such capacities, although that application

is widely dispersed among agencies and private interests; which in turn has led to

differing interpretations of the indicators. Individual chapters identify a need to further

develop the conceptual foundation on which many of the indicators are predicated.

While many uncertainties in the type and accuracy of information are brought to light,

the review clearly indicates that legal, institutional, and economic capacities to promote

sustainability are large and widely available in both the public and private sectors.

Keywords: Criterion and indicators, economic capacity, institutional capacity, legal

capacity, Montreal Process, sustainable management.
 The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture 

 (USDA), is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of 

 the Nationʼs forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, 

forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and 

National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly 

greater service to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 

sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply 

to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDAʼs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
4

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

SOUTHERN RESEARCH STATION

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT

SRS-82

JULY 2005
-

Review of Information Available for the United States Legal, Institutional, and Economic Indicators of Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management: 

2005