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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Uses and Current Conditions as a Context for Planning

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

The National Forests: A Long History of Use

The long-term economic contributions of the forest reserves wererecognized from the very beginning. Irrigation districts in the West, wanting to be assured of reliable flows for their fields, pressed Congressfor protective legislation, which was achieved in the Creative Act of 1891. Today farmers continue to rely upon clean, reliable flows fromnational forest watersheds, which comprise most of the high country in theWest.

Commercial timber production was recognized as the second purpose, in addition to watershed protection, in the 1897 Organic Act. Timber harvesting remained low until World War II, soared during the post-War boom, and has receded since the late 1980s (Figure 2b-1). Previous declines were largely the result of market forces; the recent decline is due to the increased emphasis on protection of species and ecosystems combined with the realization that intensive timber management is not always compatible with these other values.

	l                          T T T
   	l                         T
   Harv	l                        T       T
    vol	l                       T
       	l            T T T T T T           T
   	l________________________________________
   	1890			1940       1990

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

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

				             	R
 					     R
 					  R
 	l                              R
 	l                           R
 	l                         R
 RVDs	l                       R
 	l             R R R R R R
 	l________________________________________
 	1890			1940		1990

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

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

 	l     G
 	l  G     G   G            G
 AUMs	l               G  G   G     G
 	l                                G G  G  G
 	l
 	l________________________________________
 	1890			1940		1990

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

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

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

l
 	l                   T T
 	l         T  T T T
 	l      T	          T
 	l   T
 	l T 			       T
 Gross	l
 Rev	l				   T
 	l                               R  R
 	l                            R
 	l                        R R
 	l_______________________  G G G G G____________
 	1950		              1990

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although ecological conditions, according to many measures, have declined in the National Forest System, those lands generally remain less disturbed by human influence than the surrounding lands. Settlement, ranching, farming, and logging over the past century have transformed the private forests and rangelands of the United States. Rapid development continues in many parts of the country. Many rural areas near national forests and grasslands also have experienced population growth, with a sharp increase in second homes and a corresponding surge in recreation use on the adjacent national forests. We expect these trends to continue. We also expect that the national forests will increasingly be asked to form the backbone of regional conservation strategies so that activities on private land do not need to be sharply curtailed to protect species and ecosystems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In recent years, federal sustainability policy has evolved in concert with the policies of other nations. The 1992 Earth Summit (The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), which took place in Rio de Janeiro, recognized the importance of sustainable management of natural resources. In 1995, the Santiago Declaration, of which the United States is a party, was accompanied by criteria and indicators (developed through the Montreal Process") for sustainable forest management. These criteria and indicators are an important statement on forest sustainability and one goal of this report is to recommend procedures that will allow for the criteria and indicators to be integrated into the stewardship of the national forests in an effective and efficient way.

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

__________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________

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

7/6/98

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

ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY

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

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

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

A. Components of Ecological Sustainability

(1) Composition

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

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

(2) Process

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

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

(3) Structure

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

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

B. Implementing Ecological Sustainability.

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Factors to Consider in Implementing Sustainability

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

• Acknowledge The Non-Equilibrium Nature of Ecosystems

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

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

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

• Acknowledge the Significance of Natural Processes

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

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

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

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

• Acknowledge Uncertainty

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

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

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

• Acknowledge Cumulative Effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Preserve Options

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

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

D. How Ecological Concepts Affect Planning

(1) Assessing and Monitoring Sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Broad regional issues

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

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

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

(3) Sub-regions: Watersheds of Conservation Areas

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

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

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

(4) Site Specific Information

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

(5) A Cross Scale Issue: Species Viability

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

A viable species is defined as consisting of self-sustaining populations that are well-distributed throughout the species’ range. Self-sustaining populations are those that are sufficiently abundant, and have sufficient genetic diversity to display the array of life history strategies and forms that will provide for their persistence and adaptability in the planning area over time.

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

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

• Focal Species

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. Spanning Ownership Boundaries in Assessments

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

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

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

(2) The role of Advisory Boards in Assessment

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

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

Table 1. Example of hierarchical assessment

Table 2. Sustainability attributes by scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expecting an ecosystem to deliver stable and high outputs of any product can have disastrous impacts on social sustainability. Prosperous communities and economies can only remain healthy and vibrant if their foundation is ecologically sustainable. The Forest Service must be cautious to avoid making resource contributions in a manner that establishes unrealistic expectations for economies and communities that cannot be fulfilled over the long-term within the context of ecological sustainability. Doing so will only lead to hardship when abrupt changes in an economy become necessary to restore the ecological system to a sustainable path. The ghost towns found across the country stand in mute testament to the human consequences of rapid resource depletion. It was to avoid these kinds of abru