About the Report

James Pipkin is the Director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the Department of the Interior. This report was requested by the regional directors of the federal agencies that are involved in implementing the President's Pacific Northwest Forest Plan (U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and commissioned by the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, acting in her capacity as Chair of the Interagency Steering Committee for the Northwest Forest Plan effort.

It is based on materials collected from a variety of sources as well as from interviews with approximately 75 people, including members of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee, the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, the Regional Community Economic Revitalization Team, the original Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, the Regional Ecosystem Office, and agency field personnel doing on-the-ground implementation. It includes input from an intergovernmental team assembled to look at certain issues connected with the review. Drafts of the report were reviewed by many of these same people, as well as by employees at the field level and members of Provincial Advisory Committees.

Although many people provided assistance in the preparation of this report, the opinions and conclusions expressed in the report are those of the author and should not be regarded as the official position of any federal agency.

SUMMARY

Accomplishments
Lessons Learned
Future Directions -- Primary Recommendations
Caveat

BACKGROUND

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Pivotal Changes
    Ending the Impasse
    Regulatory and Economic Stability
    Change in Federal Agency Culture
Other Interagency and Intergovernmental Achievements
    Timber Sales
    Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative
    Aquatic Conservation Strategy
    Water Quality
    Streamlined Consultation Procedures
    Data Management and Resource Information
    Research and Monitoring
    Late-Successional Reserves
    Adaptive Management Areas
    Northern Spotted Owl
    Survey and Manage

LESSONS LEARNED

Development of an Interagency "Vision"
Regional Executive Forums
Interagency Staffing Arrangements
Streamlining of Regulatory Processes
Federal/Non-Federal Partnerships
Cost and Continuity of Funding
Linking Science with Management
Data Standards, Data Synthesis, and Mapping
Personnel Exchanges

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Broadening the Focus of Implementation
    Federal Interagency Coordination
    Coordination with Related State, Tribal, or Local Efforts
Information Management
Intermediate or Province-Level Analysis
    The Deschutes National Forest
    Southwest Oregon Province
    Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study
Adaptive Management
Monitoring
Interagency Budgeting
Funding Long-Term Monitoring
Relationship to Economic Adjustment Initiative
Government Performance and Results Act

ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES

Interagency Steering Committee
Regional Interagency Executive Committee
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
Separate Structure for California
Regional Ecosystem Office
Provincial Organizations
Research and Monitoring
Additional Organizational Changes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

APPENDIX 1: GENESIS OF THE REPORT

APPENDIX 2: REFERENCES

APPENDIX 3: REVISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Five years ago, President Clinton announced a new plan for the forests on federal land in the Pacific Northwest. The Northwest Forest Plan had three parts: a program for managing the forests to achieve both sustainable timber production and protection of biological diversity; a system for coordinating federal agency implementation of the forest management effort and receiving advice from non-federal interests; and an initiative for providing economic assistance and job retraining to displaced timber workers, communities, and others who were adversely affected by reductions in the size of the timber program.

To implement the forest management component of the Northwest Forest Plan, an interagency Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the heads of five Cabinet-level departments and agencies. The need to revise and extend that document, which sets forth a list of interagency objectives and outlines a structural framework for implementing the Plan, triggered the review that is the subject of this report.

This report discusses the achievements under the Northwest Forest Plan, the lessons learned that might be applicable to other natural resource challenges, the areas where progress has fallen short of what was originally envisioned, the organizational changes that have taken place and that are desirable for the future, and pending issues that could alter the thrust of future implementation activities.

Accomplishments

Even today, the Northwest Forest Plan remains controversial. Some feel that it produces timber harvests that are too small, resulting in economic and social harm to the region. Others feel that timber harvests are too large, threatening the survival of plant and animal species. Still others believe that the expectations of the economic assistance and job retraining program have not been fulfilled. At the center of these debates are policy judgments about whether the right balance was struck between economic and ecological considerations, as well as legal judgments regarding what is necessary to satisfy statutory mandates. Those issues are beyond the scope of this report.

However, based on three accomplishments alone, the Northwest Forest Plan must be judged one of the singular achievements of the Clinton Administration in the natural resource field.

The first accomplishment relates to the fact that when the Clinton Administration came into office in early 1993, injunctions had been issued that brought the timber sale program on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest to a halt. The region was a polarized battleground, with some believing that the economic and social benefits of a large timber program should take precedence over all else, and others arguing for the supremacy of ecological health and protection of biodiversity. People in the region were unable to break the impasse, and Congress was unwilling to legislate a solution.

The Northwest Forest Plan was the product of a personal commitment by the President, supported by relevant Cabinet officers, to find a solution. It involved, in the words of a district court, "a massive effort by the executive branch of the federal government to meet the legal and scientific needs of forest management." It reflected "unprecedented thoroughness." It represented the first systematic, broad-scale attempt by any administration to apply an ecosystem approach to resolve a natural resource management issue. It involved the assessment of potential impact on "more than a thousand animal and plant species for the next century."

In terms of the debate over whether ecological considerations should predominate over economic and social needs, the plan represented a compromise. It satisfied the environmental laws and protected biodiversity, including the habitat needs of the northern spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, and other species believed to be in danger. It also committed the federal agencies to the attainment of the greatest sustainable economic and social benefits while complying with environmental and other applicable laws. The result was a substantial, predictable federal timber sale program, though much smaller than the region had become used to during the 1980s. The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative provided assistance to individuals and communities who were hurt by the smaller timber program.

The Northwest Forest Plan was upheld by the courts, the injunctions were lifted, and the region began to move forward again. This was an important accomplishment -- from a situation characterized by stalemate, with no end in sight, to one in which progress could be made on ecological, economic, and social fronts.

The second major accomplishment is that the Northwest Forest Plan has provided regulatory and economic stability for owners of state and private lands, in addition to providing benefits to the regional economy from the resumption of a predictable timber supply program on federal lands.

Because one of the cornerstones of the Northwest Forest Plan was the restoration and maintenance of biological diversity, the plan was developed in a way that would "aid in the recovery of 'listed' species." Furthermore, as the "Mission Statement" from the Cabinet members to the scientific team states, the intent was to develop a plan for federal land that would minimize the "impact of protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species on non-federal lands ...." The extensive habitat protection on federal land under the plan has allowed the agencies that are responsible for enforcing the Endangered Species Act to permit more intensive economic utilization of nearby state and private lands than would otherwise have been possible.

Before the Northwest Forest Plan, uncertainty prevailed in the region concerning the extent to which state and private landowners would be able to produce timber from their lands without violating the prohibitions of the Endangered Species Act concerning the "take" of threatened or endangered species. This uncertainty, and fear than an agency might later declare land "critical habitat" for a threatened species, made it difficult for some private landowners to make long-term plans about the economic utilization of their lands.

After the Northwest Forest Plan, because of the assurance of habitat protection on federal land, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have been able to enter into large-scale "habitat conservation plan" agreements with state and private landowners. They are also proposing to limit the effect of the Endangered Species Act on private land management through the issuance of "section 4(d) rules," including a proposal that will provide relief for private landowners with small holdings. In their actions on both habitat conservation plans and 4(d) rules, the agencies are taking into account the contributions that federal lands are making toward species conservation, thereby easing the need for restrictions on non-federal lands. The result is that state and private landowners receive the flexibility and predictability that they need to take a long-term approach to the management of their lands. Collectively, these benefits to individual owners also provide increased stability for the region as a whole.

The third major achievement is the initiation of a fundamental change in how the federal agencies in the Northwest relate to each other and how they relate to the states, tribes, and the general public. Prior to the Northwest Forest Plan, the federal agencies operated relatively independently and sometimes at cross-purposes to each other. The regulatory agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Environmental Protection Agency) were often perceived as pursuing their statutory missions to protect biodiversity or safeguard clean air and water without giving adequate consideration to economic and social impacts. On the other hand, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management were sometimes regarded as placing too much emphasis on commodity production (such as timber) and not enough on ecological concerns.

The Northwest Forest Plan changed that. It established a common vision for the management of federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. It delineated a set of objectives covering ecological protection as well as commodity production and committed all the agencies to work toward all those objectives. Even more importantly, it required them to work together, on an interagency basis, to implement the Plan. It also set up a formal structure for obtaining advice on a regular basis from states, tribes, counties, and others on critical implementation issues. Forums were created at both the regional and local levels in which agency personnel are asked to put aside, as much as possible, their identities as agency employees and focus on achieving the common objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan.

This drastically altered the way that agency personnel conduct their business, and it is changing the cultures of the agencies. The new processes are not easy, and in some ways they are more burdensome than the traditional, more insular methods. But it has resulted in many tangible and intangible benefits, including: greatly improved trust among personnel; better understanding of each others' disparate missions; improved use of agency resources; and better informed decisions, which are more defensible and less likely to be challenged in court.

There is still substantial room for improvement. Some employees have not fully accepted their new interagency mandate, and some of the intended coordination has fallen short of its target. Continued effort is essential. Trust and willingness to work collaboratively can easily break down unless the process continues to be supported strongly by national and regional agency executives. Change of this magnitude takes time and constant attention. The agencies, at all levels, should work to solidify and sustain the change in agency culture, so that the new agency culture of cooperation and collaboration truly replaces the old. However, at this point the process of interagency (and intergovernmental) collaboration has become sufficiently well established that most of the federal officials involved in implementing the Northwest Forest Plan cannot imagine going back to the old way of doing business.

The progress toward transformation of relationships and of agency cultures in less than five years, though incomplete, is remarkable. It may be the single greatest accomplishment, and the greatest legacy, of the Northwest Forest Plan.

In addition to these three major changes, there have been many substantive accomplishments of the Northwest Forest Plan. The process of planning and carrying out timber sales has been revitalized, and in the last four years the agencies have met the intent of the Northwest Forest Plan "for an environmentally sensitive timber sale program with a sustainable timber harvest level." The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative has resulted in approximately one billion dollars being made available to the region to help workers, businesses, tribes, and communities.

Moreover, data management has been improved to increase information sharing, to develop common data standards, and to facilitate mapping of data from multiple agencies at a common scale. Consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act has been streamlined, so that the time required to conduct consultation on timber sales has been sharply reduced and the entire process has become more efficient. Watershed analyses have been carried out for hundreds of watersheds, providing a systematic way to understand and organize ecosystem information, and to guide management actions such as restoration projects, timber sales, and the construction or decommissioning of roads. Assessments of late-successional reserves have been conducted, to guide future actions in those reserves, and plans have been developed for more than half of the adaptive management areas. The Jobs in the Woods program, which provided displaced timber workers and others with new jobs, has resulted in improved control of road-related runoff and sediment production, restoration of riparian vegetation, and restoration of in-stream habitat complexity.

A strategic research plan has been drafted and a program of monitoring is under way that will check whether the requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan are being complied with, whether the desired goals are being achieved, and whether the management assumptions that underlie the Plan are valid. A data base has been assembled for many species about which relatively little is known, and protocols have been published on how to search for those species and determine appropriate management actions.

Lessons Learned

The intensive effort that has gone into implementing the Northwest Forest Plan has taught us a great deal, not only in terms of the particular characteristics of the federal forests in the Northwest but also in terms of how to improve interagency relationships and how to approach complex natural resource problems. The scale of the effort, the dollars devoted to it, and the unique circumstances involved suggest that the effort is not likely to be replicated exactly in other sections of the country. However, in the bigger picture, the Northwest Forest Plan represents a movement toward (1) landscape-level planning, (2) collaborative agency efforts, (3) broader public participation, and (4) a balance of economic, social, and ecological interests. All of these are positive developments and should be hallmarks of future decision-making in other parts of the country. Accordingly, it is appropriate for others to look closely at what has been done in the Northwest. In this respect, several fundamental components of the Northwest Forest Plan are worth noting as useful and proven models:

• Development of a common "vision" -- desired goals and objectives for the region's ecological and economic communities upon which all participants can agree and toward which they can all move in some collective way.

• Establishment of forums in which key participants can meet regularly and work collectively to implement the plan.

• Establishment of interagency staffing arrangements in which personnel focus on moving the collective vision forward.

• Improvement of regulatory processes to adapt them to the situation and make them more efficient.

• Establishment of one or more vehicles for direct participation by state, tribal, and local governments, and other interested parties.

• Improvement of data collection and management to develop consistent information across the relevant landscape.

• Consideration of personnel exchanges to utilize best available expertise and reduce duplication of effort.

• Joint development of research and monitoring plans that will provide the best scientific information for decision making and validation of results.

Future Directions -- Primary Recommendations

While much of the initial implementation work on the Northwest Forest Plan has been done, the job is not finished. Moreover, improvements can and should be made. The revised Memorandum of Understanding, which appears at the end of this report, has been proposed by the regional federal executives, approved by the Interagency Steering Committee, and is being circulated for signature. It either incorporates the following recommendations or provides the flexibility to implement them.

Broadening the Focus of Implementation. At this stage of implementing the Plan, it is appropriate that the agencies broaden the focus of implementation to include consideration of other initiatives taking place in the Northwest (both federal and non-federal) that affect the Plan or present opportunities for increased efficiencies.

To some extent, this broader scope has always been part of the intent of the Plan. However, in the early years of implementing the Plan, the thrust of the effort was necessarily more narrow. The agencies concentrated on developing and putting in place the new Plan for the federal lands and lifting the injunctions so that timber sale activities could resume. They were also forced to look inward by the extensive requirements of the Standards and Guidelines, which established new procedures to be followed and new analyses to be performed by the federal agencies. These activities included conducting watershed analyses, establishing watershed restoration priorities and late-successional reserve assessments, developing and implementing research and monitoring plans, revising data management systems, and developing protocols for "survey and manage" species.

Now that many initial implementation tasks have been completed, recent developments suggest that it is time for the agencies to increase their efforts to broaden their focus. These developments include: (1) actions by federal regulatory agencies that are not part of the Northwest Forest Plan but that could affect the latitude of decision-making under the Plan; and (2) initiatives by states that involve related issues where implementation efforts parallel actions under the Northwest Forest Plan and where opportunities are provided for efficiencies and for accomplishment of mutual objectives. Examples of the former are decisions to "list" certain species of salmon under the Endangered Species Act, or approvals of habitat conservation plans on private land; examples of the latter category are state initiatives to facilitate salmon recovery.

The change suggested here toward broadening the focus of implementation represents a shift toward (1) looking at where the greatest gain can be achieved on the entire relevant landscape, not just on federal lands, and (2) increasing collaboration with states, tribes, local governments, and private landowners in situations where mutual interests can be advanced. In these respects, the change is emblematic of a fundamental shift in the way the federal agencies relate to each other and to other landowners and land managers.

Viewed another way, the change represents a conscious decision by the federal agencies to become involved at an early stage in the initiatives of the states and other key players. Such early collaboration is enormously beneficial. It contrasts with the more traditional scenario in which individual governmental organizations proceed with planning, and only hear the concerns of other interested governmental entities after they have made significant investments in a preferred outcome. Under that scenario, any concerns expressed by others are unwelcome and possibly costly, depending on what changes are required.

In implementing a broadened focus, the federal partners will have to decide how federal efforts, including ecosystem restoration under the Jobs in the Woods program, could be more fully integrated and coordinated with complementary state, tribal, and local initiatives under current budget constraints. The Regional Interagency Executive Committee, with input from the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, should develop the specific details of how such collaboration will be carried out.

Information Management. A second major recommendation is for the agencies to rededicate themselves toward achieving a "seamless web" of information across the landscape that can facilitate better informed management decisions and be used at a variety of scales for many different purposes. This was one of the goals of the original Northwest Forest Plan. It is a difficult objective to accomplish, since it requires the agencies to develop common data standards and to overcome incompatibilities in computer hardware, software, mapping scales, and data categorization. The problems are multiplied when attempts are made to incorporate information compiled by states, tribes, and other non-federal sources. While significant progress has been made, particularly within the federal family, it is no surprise that the agencies have so far fallen short of their ambitious target. Nevertheless, it is important that the agencies redouble their effort.

Budget constraints hinder progress in this area. It is never easy to fund long-term improvements when near-term needs remain unmet. However, to the extent feasible, the agencies should commit mid-level management to develop and implement a cohesive information management strategy that supports Northwest Forest Plan activities, including monitoring, salmonid recovery, watershed restoration, and water quality, while meeting the information needs of individual organizations. They should establish explicit and measurable goals and milestones with which to measure progress and eventual success. And they should describe an integrated information strategy and build the necessary partnerships to implement that strategy.

Intermediate Level Analysis. A third suggestion seeks to move the agencies toward an intermediate level of analysis -- that is, a level somewhere between the regional scale and the site specific, or planning action, scale. In the Record of Decision, this intermediate level was referred to as a "province" or "river basin" level. The agencies have largely avoided any formal "planning" effort at this intermediate scale, in part because of the extensive legal requirements for documentation and "process" at each planning level. However, recent experience in the Deschutes National Forest (where a type of landscape planning has been carried out for 155,000 acres) and by the Southwest Oregon Province Interagency Executive Committee (which is taking a landscape approach in assessing the Rogue watershed and Umpqua river basin) indicates that an intermediate-level assessment can be an important step. It helps to detect landscape-level patterns and trends. It also provides a context for site-specific actions and enables land managers to demonstrate to members of the community the reasonableness of agency actions. In addition, it can support not only actions under the Northwest Forest Plan, but also actions under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and state initiatives such as the Oregon Plan.

Adaptive Management. Another area where initial expectations have fallen short is adaptive management -- the process of taking into account new information and altering management direction accordingly. The necessary predicate for adaptive management is new information. In years to come, new information provided by effectiveness monitoring will be a primary basis for changes in management decisions. However, effectiveness monitoring is only a tool for long-term change. At present there is no short-term systematic way to search for, assimilate, or utilize new information. Moreover, there is a widespread perception among federal employees that the Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan are too rigid and difficult to change.

This report proposes a rededication to the principle of adaptive management, which must be a cornerstone of any long-term plan, like the Northwest Forest Plan, where little is known at the outset of the management effort about some aspects of the ecological (or economic or social) universe, and where the intention is to modify and improve the plan as experience is gained. Adaptive management is not easy to accomplish within current planning processes, but it is important that the agencies strive to evaluate and respond to new information. The agencies should consider establishing some form of a structured, interagency review process. In addition, they should review, and attempt to reduce, impediments to adaptive management. This may include the possibility of amending agency planning regulations to make it less burdensome for agency activities to evolve or for refinements to be made to the Standards and Guidelines.

Research and Monitoring. Research and monitoring remain central components of the Northwest Forest Plan and pose special problems -- in terms of validating the assumptions underlying the Plan and assuring interagency funding for programs that will be in existence for decades and that will yield only long-term results. Indeed, the Northwest Forest Plan itself, as a form of adaptive ecosystem management, has created an interdependency among participating agencies and presents the difficult (some would say impossible) challenge to the agencies of coordinating their budgets in some fashion and providing long-term predictability of funding. The continued success of the Northwest Forest Plan hinges on each agency's continued participation.

The challenge in this area also includes the need to forge strong and lasting links among resource management, monitoring and research. Each is important to ecosystem management. Such linkages will require an intergovernmental commitment to information gathering and information sharing. Institutional responsibilities and accountability should be established. Resource managers should be involved in establishing the vision and the desired outcomes in the ecosystem. They must help frame the management questions that monitoring seeks to answer, and they must be involved in evaluating the results.

Stable, Long-Term Funding. Having a stable source of federal agency funding is a critical component of any successful regional ecosystem plan. Funding for the Northwest Forest Plan needs to continue long enough to support not only the initial transition tasks but also the additional land management and coordination activities associated with long-term implementation. The regional executives should consider discussing this issue with the Interagency Steering Committee. The Office of Management and Budget should be invited to participate in those discussions.

The agencies should consider whether alternative, perhaps more systematic and unified, budget request mechanisms would help assure long-term funding for aspects of the Northwest Forest Plan. Such budget requests could also include the Jobs in the Woods program, and the integral role its ecosystem restoration funding plays in the overall Northwest Forest Plan effort. The agencies need to be constantly alert for ways to hold down the costs of implementing the Northwest Forest Plan, to find efficient ways to fund interagency projects, and to structure their work so that Northwest Forest Plan activities are not treated as separate and apart from their traditional responsibilities.

Managers at all levels must be committed to monitoring as a budgetary and substantive priority. One way to approach the funding needs for long-term monitoring would be to develop a new appropriation account providing no-year funds devoted exclusively to long-term monitoring. Initial capitalization of the account could be accomplished by transferring currently appropriated monitoring funds from the research and national forest system or other operating accounts. Such an account would clarify the relative importance of the currently ambiguous status of monitoring. However it is accomplished, it is important to give monitoring a standing comparable to the more traditional management and research activities.

Relationship to Economic Adjustment Initiative. Agencies should consider whether there should be more coordination between the forest management and economic adjustment aspects of the Northwest Forest Plan than there is now. If it is determined that coordination should be increased, there are several options for doing so. The relationship between the two components of the Northwest Forest Plan would also benefit from a modification in the reporting of accomplishments. It may be desirable for the agencies to develop and implement a tracking, monitoring, and reporting system to identify the improvements to the watersheds, habitats, rivers, and streams, and to the impacted communities in the region resulting from the expenditures and agency actions.

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Federal agencies are entering a new era of managing their programs and justifying their budgets on the basis of accountability of outcomes. This conclusion is reinforced by the Government Performance and Results Act, whose requirements suggest that the agencies should pay special attention to outcomes as they begin a new round of revisions to their land management plans. The Regional Ecosystem Office could be called upon to help the agencies integrate their strategic planning and compliance with GPRA. For example, the Office might prepare in GPRA format its annual Northwest Forest Plan budget and activities planning exercises.

Organizational Changes. In addition to the foregoing primary recommendations concerning substantive areas, the report also recommends changes in the interagency organizations that are involved in Plan implementation. Like the substantive changes, these organizational changes are reflected in the revised Memorandum of Understanding, which appears at the end of this report and which is being circulated for signature.

Interagency Steering Committee. The Northwest Forest Plan committed agency personnel to an unprecedented level of interagency and intergovernmental work. Sustaining the effort requires that agency directors in Washington be involved and hear about the achievements, the challenges, and future funding requirements. To accomplish this, the membership of the Interagency Steering Committee should be expanded to include the agency directors. The Department of Justice, the Office of Management and Budget, and others should be involved as appropriate. The Committee should meet periodically (preferably twice a year) to receive an interagency briefing and provide advice on issues referred by the regional executives. Meetings should be coordinated with the annual budget process. The reconstituted Committee may wish to include other regional or national initiatives as part of its portfolio.

Regional Interagency Executive Committee. The report recommends that membership on the Regional Interagency Executive Committee should be extended to the Corps of Engineers and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. It also recommends that the regional executives devote more attention to the integration of federal and non-federal ecosystem management activities across the landscape, where appropriate, and to integration with the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. The Regional Interagency Executive Committee should conduct periodic reviews of implementation groups and present recommendations for change to the Interagency Steering Committee.

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee is the primary vehicle for receiving input at the regional level from the states, tribes, and counties. The agencies have accepted the recommendation that they should broaden the focus of implementation to include consideration of other federal and non-federal initiatives. The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee is a forum in which part of that consideration should take place. The agencies have also agreed that the consideration of issues involving northern California warrants setting up a subcommittee to deal with California issues.

Regional Ecosystem Office. The Regional Ecosystem Office, the principal staff office for the regional executives, has been critical to the success of the Northwest Forest Plan and should be continued in its present form. However, its workload will continue to change, away from "nuts and bolts" implementation issues and toward longer-range planning and support of monitoring efforts, data management, and adaptive management. The regional executives should continue to review periodically the workload and staffing of the Regional Ecosystem Office and make appropriate changes.

Provincial Advisory Committees. The Provincial Advisory Committees consist of representatives of federal agencies, states, tribes, and others in each of the twelve provinces in the region. They are a key to collaboration with state watershed councils and biodiversity councils, as well as to coordination with the economic initiative. They should be structured to reduce duplication and maximize efficiency. In some cases, consideration could even be given to eliminating a Provincial Advisory Committee if it is felt that the desired benefits can be obtained through some other existing institution.

There is no formal reporting relationship to the regional level for either the Provincial Interagency Executive Committees or Provincial Advisory Committees. The Regional Interagency Executive Committee should consider ways to strengthen ties and improve communication between province-level and region-level organizations, to provide guidance from the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee or the Regional Interagency Executive Committee in situations where that is appropriate, and to provide increased opportunity for Provincial Advisory Committees to have input on policy issues that will affect management at the province level. The composition and role of individual Provincial Advisory Committees should be reconsidered in order to increase coordination with other organizations (such as state watershed councils) and with the economic initiative, and to maximize efficiency.

Caveat

This is a critical time for the Northwest Forest Plan. Direct attacks on the Plan (including a number of lawsuits and one act of Congress that required the agencies to make or release certain timber sales regardless of whether those sales were consistent with the Plan) have thus far been unsuccessful in forcing a termination of the Plan and its processes. Indirect assaults (such as decreases in agency funding) could in time succeed where direct attacks have failed.

The new processes -- the collaboration among federal agencies, the coordination with states, tribes, and counties, the watershed analyses, the movement toward a uniform data base, the development of research and monitoring programs, the effort to survey for lesser known species -- all take time, effort, and money. On some of these matters, especially the development of validation and effectiveness monitoring and of a coordinated information network, the agencies are not where they hoped to be at this stage. If funding shrinks, the problem could become worse and the plan could become more vulnerable to direct challenge.

In addition, the novelty of the plan has worn off, the initial implementation tasks have largely been completed, and many of the employees who were involved in the initial phases have moved on. There is a danger that the agencies will lose interest in the plan, forget why it is important, or develop other funding priorities.

A failure to carry through with plan implementation would be extremely unfortunate. The plan represents a new way of doing business that is far preferable to the old way. Moreover, the plan is the first large-scale, multi-agency effort to develop a systematic ecosystem approach that reconciles competing ecologic, economic, and social interests. Further, an unusual combination of factors suggested that this was a virtually ideal situation in which to attempt such an approach: lawsuits had created a stalemate; many of the relevant parties were ready for a new solution; the issues were clearly defined; 24 million acres of relatively homogeneous federal forest land defined the area to be addressed; and the Administration was willing to make the plan a high priority in terms of leadership, commitment, and financial support. Also, other state, tribal, and private parties were faced with similar issues about satisfying statutory mandates for clean water, clean air, and biological diversity while achieving economic utilization of their property; the potential existed for developing complementary plans that served the needs of both federal and non-federal landowners.

If the Northwest Forest Plan cannot be sustained over the long term, it could send a signal to agency personnel that they should discourage any innovative attempts to develop collaboration across a landscape or to break out of the mold of traditional, fragmented agency decision-making. That would be tragic. Every effort should be made to continue the progress of the Northwest Forest Plan and to achieve its full potential.

BACKGROUND

In the early 1990s, the forests on federal land in the Pacific Northwest were a major battleground. They were the focal point of the debate over whether human needs for economic growth take precedence over stewardship responsibilities for the natural world. The issue was portrayed as jobs versus environmental protection, humans versus owls. Feelings were strong on both sides of the issue, and tension in the region was extraordinary.

A series of court-ordered injunctions brought timber sales in federal forests to a virtual standstill. The political, legal, and economic situation was repeatedly described as one of "logjam," "impasse," and "gridlock." According to the Administration of President Bush, an "avalanche of litigation" seeking to "exploit the conflicting mandates of laws passed by Congress governing the management of our federal forest lands" had halted the federal timber harvest program, negatively affecting timber workers, mill owners, and local communities. The Bush Administration asked Congress to change the laws, but there was no agreement in Congress on what to do, and there appeared to be little hope for solution in the foreseeable future.

That was the situation confronting the Clinton Administration when it came into office in early 1993. In April of that year, President Clinton convened a "forest conference" in Portland, Oregon, to address the human and environmental needs served by federal forests of the Pacific Northwest and northern California. The President, Vice-President and many of the Cabinet members spent an entire day listening to all points of view. At the conclusion of the conference, the President pledged to end the deadlock. He proposed that a new, balanced and comprehensive long-term policy be crafted for 24 million acres of public land. The policy was aimed at meeting five principles:

• Where sound management policies can preserve the health of forest lands, sales should go forward. Where this requirement cannot be met, we need to do our best to offer new economic opportunities for year-round, high wage, high skill jobs.

• The long-term health of our forests, our wildlife, and our waterways must be protected.

• Efforts must be, in so far as we are wise enough to know it, scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally responsible.

• The plan should produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales that will not degrade or destroy the environment.

• Federal agencies must work together and work for the people to achieve these goals.

An interagency, interdisciplinary team of expert scientists, economists, sociologists, and others was assembled. It was led by Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, who was later named Chief of the Forest Service. After three months of intensive work, which included the review and evaluation of all fully-developed proposals for management of federal forests within the range of the northern spotted owl, the team produced a report assessing in detail ten options. A second team developed options for dealing with economic dislocation that could result from reduced timber harvests.

A third team, chaired by the author of this report, developed a report on the interagency coordination that would be required to implement an ecosystem-based approach to forest management. This agency coordination team identified a number of factors that had contributed to the gridlock and made it difficult for the federal agencies to work together. These included: laws that established inconsistent agency mandates; lack of agreed-upon common goals or shared mission; management incentives based solely on timber production; inability to adapt rapidly from an emphasis on commodity production to a social setting that increasingly valued ecological protection; court rulings; technological constraints; structural problems with respect to agency budgets; and lack of trust -- among federal agencies and within individual agencies.

The agency coordination team proposed a new way of thinking and a new way of doing business for federal land managers and regulatory agencies that would involve:

• A shift to an ecosystem approach that crosses jurisdictional boundaries and puts in place: planning based on watersheds rather than agency boundaries; active and meaningful public participation; and a balanced approach to commodity production that accommodates both commodity outputs and ecosystem viability.

• A commitment to improved interagency processes, including: a variety of interagency groups; structured linkages with the economic development activities in the region; a streamlined consultation process under the Endangered Species Act; establishment of an interagency geographic information system; establishment of a coordinated, flexible budget process; and modification of planning processes to accommodate the constantly changing circumstances in which the agencies operate and to allow increased opportunity for input by state, tribal and local governments, local communities, and other interested parties.

• Increased adaptive management efforts through an approach that: is amenable to continual reevaluation and adjustment; provides a monitoring system to measure progress toward goals; and creates adaptive management areas that are to be used for intensive ecological experimentation and social innovation.

• Agency revitalization that involves: shared implementation of a common resource management mission; delegation of authority to the field or regional levels; personnel incentives that reward managers for actions leading to forest health; and other shared objectives for the ecosystem.

The agency coordination team concluded that "bold changes are required" in how agencies relate to one another and to the states, tribes, private landowners, and communities and people in the region, and proposed many specific actions that subsequently were adopted and implemented in the region.

On July 1, 1993, President Clinton announced "The Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy and a Sustainable Environment," a comprehensive forestry, economic development and agency coordination package that provides: a new forest management plan that enables sustainable harvests, protects key water supplies, and establishes a comprehensive system of reserves to protect old growth ecosystems; new economic assistance intended to help local workers, businesses and communities to create family-wage jobs, offer new economic opportunities, and facilitate the region's long-term economic health; new opportunities for people in the region to participate in decisions; and improved coordination among federal agencies responsible for managing federal lands.

To implement the necessary high level of coordination and cooperation among agencies, the principal departments or agencies involved in the Northwest Forest Plan signed in October 1993 a Memorandum of Understanding. Signatories included the White House Office on Environmental Policy (now the Council on Environmental Quality), the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Signers of the Memorandum of Understanding agreed to:

• Develop a cohesive vision and shared sense of mission for the management of federal forest lands which balances multiple objectives;

• Improve their ability to adapt to change, such as new scientific understanding or changing societal values, in a cohesive manner;

• Cultivate greater trust, coordination, and cooperation among federal agencies, within individual agencies, and between federal agencies and non-federal interests;

• Address inconsistencies among statutory mandates;

• Improve integrated application of agency budgets to maximize efficient use of funds for overlapping or related efforts;

• Improve the sharing of information and the pooling of agencies' technology and expertise; and

• Coordinate ecosystem management activities in concert with federal, state and local programs for economic, labor, and community assistance.

The Memorandum of Understanding established several coordinating groups to develop, support, and oversee the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan for federal forests within the range of the northern spotted owl. An Interagency Steering Committee in Washington, D.C., was to establish overall implementation policies. A Regional Interagency Executive Committee, consisting of the regional heads of the principal federal agencies involved in implementing the Plan, was to be the focal point for cross-agency management strategy in the region. A Regional Ecosystem Office was to staff the regional executives and handle consistency and implementation issues associated with the Plan. Local interagency teams were to coordinate analysis at the province level. Additional interagency groups were to focus on information management and research and monitoring.

The Memorandum of Understanding also recognized the importance of participation by states, tribes, and others in the decision-making process at both the regional and province levels. Subsequently, this participation was formalized through the creation of an Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and twelve Provincial Advisory Committees. All of these were chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The joint interagency goals established in the Memorandum of Understanding, and the interagency implementation groups, were radical for the region and for the country.

The multi-agency approach was further cemented in April 1994, when the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior issued a joint Record of Decision that culminated the extensive environmental impact assessment process for the Northwest Forest Plan. Choosing a slightly modified version of what has come to be known as Alternative 9 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the Secretaries signed a Record of Decision that amended or was incorporated into the planning documents for nineteen national forests and seven Bureau of Land Management districts, thus adopting a common management approach to the land those agencies administer throughout the Pacific Northwest ecological region. The Northwest Forest Plan also affects the management of lands in the region administered by the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Defense. The management direction in the Record of Decision consists of extensive Standards and Guidelines, including land allocations, that comprise a comprehensive ecosystem management strategy.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Pivotal Changes

Three significant transformations took place in the Pacific Northwest as a result of the Northwest Forest Plan that, had nothing else been accomplished, made the effort worthwhile. The first was breaking the economic logjam that resulted from the court-ordered halt in the sale of federal timber in the region by putting in place an unprecedented ecosystem-based approach to management of the federal lands. The second was use of federal lands for threatened and endangered species conservation in a way that allowed more discretion and flexibility in regulatory programs affecting private lands. The third was a dramatic change in agency culture in which otherwise disparate federal agencies structured their science, planning, and management to take place in an interagency, and even intergovernmental, arena. All three accomplishments fundamentally altered the way the agencies relate to each other and to the public.

Ending the Impasse. As indicated above, prior to the Northwest Forest Plan, proposed levels of timber harvests, with their associated support to local economies, had run headlong into environmental concerns. These concerns focused on the northern spotted owl, which had received formal protection under the Endangered Species Act. But the concerns were much broader, including other officially protected species such as the marbled murrelet, anticipated protections that were likely to be extended to anadromous fish species such as salmon, and scores of other potentially threatened plant and animal species. Indeed, the controversy reflected a deep division of sentiment in the region and throughout the country as to whether federal forests should be managed primarily for the production of timber or whether they should be managed to protect biodiversity and to meet the rapidly expanding demand for recreational opportunities.

The team that assessed the options for forest management was directed to take an ecosystem-based approach. That concept recognizes that forests are complex networks of biological systems connected and dependent on each other, and that people are an integral part of those ecosystems. The objective was to come up with a plan that satisfies the environmental laws (including the requirements for "listed" species under the Endangered Species Act), provides for an interconnected system of old growth, and, subject to those constraints, produces the greatest sustainable economic and social benefits for the region. The resulting analysis, which required the consideration of impacts on more than one thousand plant and animal species, as well as on economic and social factors, was without parallel.

Within months after release of the Northwest Forest Plan, the injunctions on timber sales were lifted, clearing the way for agencies to plan new sales and undertake other management actions, for the first time in three years. In December 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan was upheld by one of the same courts that enjoined the federal government in earlier years. The court specifically endorsed the ecosystem approach, noting:

"The agencies for years had operated independently and sometimes in conflict. In the current plan they cooperated and have analyzed not just individual species but ecosystems. . . . Given the current condition of the forests, there is no way the agencies could comply with the environmental laws without planning on an ecosystem basis."

Since then, the agencies have continued to prevail in most subsequent legal challenges, allowing the Plan to move forward. The new program under the Northwest Forest Plan struck a balance between the many competing interests in the region and established predictable, regular, timber harvests. This does not mean that everyone in the region is happy with the balance that was struck. They are not, and the Plan continues to be attacked by some individuals or groups -- some contending that it establishes too high a level of environmental protection, others that it does not do enough. As one Member of Congress recently noted:

"There's 100 percent agreement ... that we all love our national forests. But 50 percent of us love them vertical, and the rest want to see them horizontal."

Nonetheless, the Plan has survived, timber sales are occurring, and a regional framework is in place to protect biodiversity and provide clean water. These are major accomplishments.

Regulatory and Economic Stability. The Northwest Forest Plan provided increased regulatory and economic stability for owners of state and private lands, in addition to providing a predictable timber supply program on federal lands.

Before the Northwest Forest Plan, there was a great deal of uncertainty among state and private landowners in the region concerning the extent to which they would be allowed to harvest timber on their property without violating the "take" prohibitions of the Endangered Species Act. They were also concerned that an agency might later declare their land "critical habitat" for a threatened or endangered species. These uncertainties led some landowners to harvest their timber prematurely to avoid any unknown restrictions that might be imposed in the future.

It was partly out of the concern of private landowners, and partly because federal forest lands were so extensive in the region, that the Fish and Wildlife Service limited critical habitat designation for the northern spotted owl to federal lands, excluding all private, Indian, and state lands.

Following the Forest Conference, the interagency groups working on the Northwest Forest Plan were instructed to take an ecosystem approach to forest management that particularly addresses "maintenance and restoration of biological diversity," and to "suggest innovative ways federal forests can contribute to economic and social well-being." Further, in developing a program for federal lands, the "impact of protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species on non-federal lands within the region of concern should be minimized."

The Northwest Forest Plan was constructed so as to promote the restoration and maintenance of biological diversity. The Record of Decision states that "our decision will provide for habitat of an amount and distribution that will support the continued persistence of the northern spotted owl," and that "adoption of these standards and guidelines will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species under the Endangered Species Act." These conclusions are based on a finding that the decision results in:

"approximately 80 percent of the approximately 8.5 million acres of medium and large late-successional conifer forests in the planning area being within land allocations that do not allow for programmed timber harvest. ... In addition, some 42 percent of the areas within the late-successional reserves designated under our decision are dominated by such forest types. Late-successional reserves will provide large continuous blocks in which silvicultural treatments are severely limited, protecting species associated with late-successional and old-growth forest habitat ...."

Thus, the Northwest Forest Plan assured that federal lands contribute their full share for owl conservation. The extensive habitat protection on federal land under the plan has allowed the agencies that are responsible for enforcing the Endangered Species Act to permit more intensive economic utilization of nearby state and private lands than would otherwise have been possible.

Because of the assurance of habitat protection on federal land, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have been able to enter into large-scale "habitat conservation plan" agreements with public and private landowners. In the range of the northern spotted owl, habitat conservation plans approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service include: Washington Department of Natural Resources (1,660,000 acres in Washington State); Oregon Department of Forestry (615,000 acres in Oregon); Plum Creek Timber Company (170,000 acres in Washington); Weyerhauser (two agreements totaling 600,000 acres in Oregon); and Simpson Timber Company (383,000 acres in northern California).

These habitat conservation plans, along with the "no surprises" and "safe harbor" initiatives, are positive developments that complement the Northwest Forest Plan in protecting the diversity and health of ecosystems across the landscape. The "no surprises" policy provides regulatory assurances to the holder of an incidental take permit issued under section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act that no additional land use restrictions or financial compensation will be imposed, even if unforeseen circumstances arise. The "safe harbor" policy provides incentives for private and other non-federal property owners voluntarily to conserve the habitats of threatened and endangered species.

In addition to the habitat conservation plans, the Fish and Wildlife Service intends to issue in early 1999 a final rule under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act to provide relief for "take" of northern spotted owls for private landowners with small holdings. This rule will also be based on the assumption that federal lands will provide for most of the needs of the spotted owl over its range.

These regulatory provisions give states and businesses that rely on natural resources the predictability they need to service the interests of their employees, communities, customers, and shareholders. Like the Northwest Forest Plan, they strike a balance between impacts resulting from timber harvests and conservation of threatened species. Because of the contributions that federal lands are making toward species conservation under the Northwest Forest Plan, these provisions can be used more extensively than otherwise might have been possible, thereby easing the need for restrictions on non-federal lands and giving state and private landowners the flexibility and predictability they need to take a long-term approach to the management of their lands.

Change in Federal Agency Culture. The Northwest Forest Plan is producing a radical and massive change in federal agency culture. The essence of the new culture may be characterized as one vision for the region, one Administration policy, one set of actions, one set of procedural requirements, and one science.

The initial, and most immediate, change took place in agency operations, in how agency personnel do their day-to-day jobs. Prior to the Northwest Forest Plan, federal resource managers were guided by their own agency's vision and policies, undertook actions pursuant to their own agency's mission, followed their own agency's procedures, and grounded their decisions in mission-oriented science. In contrast, agencies now are generally operating in concert to implement the multiple objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan.

This process begins at the top. The regional executives involved in all aspects of implementing the Northwest Forest Plan meet as a group each month to discuss policy issues and exchange information of interest, and they are in regular contact at other times. Among regional executives, personal relationships and trust have been increased due to getting to know each other and having open, candid discussions. In addition, key implementation activities are discussed regularly with representatives of three states, tribes, and counties.

The changeover to interagency cooperation has been rocky at times, and it does not necessarily represent an easier way of planning and making decisions, at least in the short term. In some ways, the structure of the Northwest Forest Plan is more complex and more burdensome than the traditional way of doing business on an agency-by-agency basis with a focus on narrow goals, objectives and missions.

However, through the process, participants have seen many benefits of interagency and intergovernmental cooperation, including: improved relationships and trust among the personnel of different federal agencies and non-federal entities; a better sense of each others' missions, cultures, and mandates; more acceptable and more supportable decisions; unified decisions that allow agencies to follow joint, or at least parallel, implementation paths; multi-agency "buy-in" even on decisions that are made unilaterally by one agency; and joint directives to the field units of several agencies. Agencies have made progress in leveraging their funds more effectively, moving toward common data bases and standards for management, monitoring, and research activities, and maximizing their limited resources.

Over time, by doing business in this new way and experiencing these successes, a transformation has been taking place in agency culture. It shapes how agency personnel approach problems, how they view the world, and how they perceive their role in the broader scheme of things. As they implement the Northwest Forest Plan, all of the affected agencies are players, and all contribute something to the overall effort.

Agency identification becomes less important in this environment. No longer does each agency consider its decisions in a relative vacuum, sometimes in competition with and possibly to the detriment of another agency. Instead, key regional government business is conducted in an interagency, and to some degree an intergovernmental, arena, and interagency planning is perceived as the appropriate way to do business. The Northwest Forest Plan has fostered an atmosphere in which participating agencies are encouraged to bring problem areas out into the open and discuss them with a view toward finding a consensus solution. Agencies continue to discharge their statutory responsibilities, but the emphasis is on the collective vision. This collective focus is especially apparent at the meetings of the regional executives and the activities of the Regional Ecosystem Office, where employees of various agencies work on the ecosystem aspects of the Northwest Forest Plan.

The real payoff has been in terms of outcomes. Traditional narrowly-focused, polarized, and competitive approaches were partly responsible for the impasse that had engulfed the Pacific Northwest. They constituted a major barrier to resolving the impasse. It was not until agencies, responding to the leadership of the President and to the need to work together to overcome adverse judicial decisions, moved beyond their own limited perspectives, and took collective aim at a common goal, that the region was able to begin moving again -- toward a sustainable flow of timber sales and toward judicious protection of ecological resources.

Prior to the Northwest Forest Plan, the timber program had been subject to a number of injunctions and to a process that often resulted in a need to start project planning over again. The inefficiency and the additional expense involved in that process, though hard to quantify, are huge. Viewed narrowly, the current planning process may be regarded as more cumbersome than normal agency processes. However, viewed against the historical framework of stop-and-start planning, the current process represents considerable progress.

The interagency and intergovernmental cooperation structures are still functioning in the region after nearly five years. That fact alone is remarkable, because there are so many aspects of traditional agency culture that mitigate against cooperative efforts. Not only are the original participants insistent on maintaining the interagency cooperation structure, but agencies that were not originally part of the Northwest Forest Plan have begun to participate as well, and stand ready to join as official partners if the Memorandum of Understanding is renewed. Also, though the coordination process originally was designed to carry out the specific mandates of the Northwest Forest Plan, participating agencies have agreed to expand the interagency collaboration and implementation concept to bring to the table additional issues that affect the Northwest Forest Plan but that were not originally mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding.

In 1996, the Office of Forestry and Economic Assistance reported widespread agreement with an observation made by a Forest Service employee: "While developing effective coordination has sometimes been halting and difficult, there is no doubt that agencies are working more closely together and understanding each other more fully. This cannot but reap benefits that go far beyond the scope of the Northwest Forest Plan." Many who participated in the Northwest Forest Plan go further in their praise of the approach and suggest that interagency and intergovernmental cooperation has become a feature so positive and so pervasive that there is little possibility of turning back the clock and going back to the old way of doing business -- even if the Northwest Forest Plan itself were to disappear. The issues are too interrelated, and people now have the realistic expectation of contributing something from their own perspective to a common goal.

However, it should be noted that the transformation remains a work in progress. Agencies still respond to their own constituencies and their own statutory mandates. Not everyone embraces the idea that the new way constitutes progress. In addition, even now, many individuals express the view that while their own agency is committed to collaboration, they do not feel that other agencies share that commitment fully. Trust and willingness to work collaboratively can easily break down unless the process continues to be supported strongly by national and regional agency executives.

Change of this magnitude takes time and constant attention. If the change is to be sustained to such an extent that the new agency culture truly replaces the old, it requires continued effort.

Other Interagency and Intergovernmental Achievements

Many accomplishments of the Northwest Forest Plan resulted from the new pattern of interagency collaboration. Most would not have occurred at all under the old system, or if they did, would have been done separately and independently by one or more agencies with relative disregard for other agencies. Even if some type of formal coordination were required under the previous system, it often would have been formalistic and combative. Further, it is highly unlikely that the old way of operating would have produced decisions that survived judicial scrutiny as has the Northwest Forest Plan. Some examples of the benefits of interagency and intergovernmental processes associated with the Northwest Forest Plan are summarized below.

Timber Sales. Historically, timber operators in the Pacific Northwest could expect a relatively constant supply of federal timber from year to year. Agency forestry plans established allowable sale quantities as an amount that could be sustainably produced within planning constraints. Congress typically adopted these quantities as targets and funded their accomplishment. From 1980 through 1988, federal timber sales were steady at about six billion board feet each year. Harvest rates varied annually because purchasers of federal timber had from one month to five years (depending on the length of the contract) to harvest the timber they had purchased.

Starting around 1980, sales and harvest rates took some unusual turns as a result of markets, legislation, and litigation. The recession of the early 1980s resulted in a large accumulation of uncut timber under contract. Harvest from federal lands dropped to a low of about 2.5 billion board feet in 1982; the operators had paid high prices for the stumpage, but would lose money if they harvested the trees in a depressed lumber market. In the middle to late 1980s, legislation was passed that enabled purchasers who had paid prices that could not be recovered at then current market conditions to "buy out" their uncut timber sale contracts.

The buy-out program contributed to a decline in the supply of federal timber under contract, as did modifications in contract rules that required harvest within three years after the sale. Judge Dwyer issued the first regional injunction on timber sales in 1989, which led to further declines in the supply of federal timber under contract to a 1993 level of 2.5 billion board feet, down from the high of over 20 billion board feet ten years earlier. By 1992, new federal timber sales had virtually stopped.

The Northwest Forest Plan aimed at once again providing a stable timber-sale program, albeit at lower levels, and with modified priorities. Sustainability under the Northwest Forest Plan depends upon a recalculated land base that balances habitat protection and timber harvest. Unlike the earlier focus primarily on timber growth and harvest, the new balancing concept of sustainability emphasizes the kind and amount of habitat needed to assure the long-term viability of aquatic systems and terrestrial species, in particular those associated with late-successional and old-growth forest habitats. Estimates of timber sale levels are characterized as probable sale quantities, reflecting the uncertainty associated with estimating yield within the planning requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan.

Under the Northwest Forest Plan, only commercial forest land within the matrix and portions of adaptive management areas can produce volume that can satisfy a regulated timber volume objective and be used to calculate probably sale quantity. Some categories of timber sale accomplishments were expected over and above the amounts associated with probable sale quantity. For example, volume from late-successional reserves and riparian reserves was not to be considered as regulated and therefore was to be counted in addition to probable sale quantity.

Timber-sale planning under the Northwest Forest Plan also differs in several ways from sale planning of the past. It requires: watershed analyses in key watersheds before any activity can take place; compliance with revised Standards and Guidelines for laying out timber sales, such as protection of riparian reserves, location and retention of special habitats, and meeting guidelines for green-tree and snag retention; and increased involvement of regulatory agencies and other interested parties early in the planning process.

Under the Northwest Forest Plan, about four million acres, or 16 percent of the federal lands, are available for regulated timber harvest and thus contribute to probable sale quantity. It was originally anticipated that federal lands could contribute sustainable harvests at about 1.1 billion board feet per year over the 10-year life of the Northwest Forest Plan. Completion of final forestry plans for northern California National Forests and Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts in late 1994 resulted in a more accurate estimate of sustainable harvest level of 1.0 billion board feet, with approximately 905 million board feet from regulated harvests, and an additional 10 percent expected from "other wood," which includes cull, salvage, and other similar products.

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have been working hard to meet their annual timber sale levels under the Northwest Forest Plan. The task has been difficult. They had to start from the beginning, because sale planning and preparation had nearly stopped for three years during the injunctions and land management objectives were substantially changed. As a result, the agencies committed to meeting 60 percent of the probable sale quantity in 1995, 80 percent in 1996, and 100 percent in 1997.

The agencies exceeded their goal in 1995 and 1996, offering 620 and 869 million board feet respectively. The 1997 accomplishment of 924 million board feet fell somewhat short of the goal primarily because of unexpected controversy associated with replacement timber volume under the terms of the 1995 Rescissions Act and within municipal watersheds on national forests, and the loss of records when the Forest Service Oakridge Ranger Station was burned. However, additional volume was produced by enhancement activities within reserves because these treatments were given a higher priority by the agencies than originally planned. Correspondingly, accomplishments within the matrix are slightly below plans because of continuing local controversy.

The Rescissions Act was a complicating factor in the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. That act required the Forest Serviced and Bureau of Land Management to make or release a number of timber sales, including many so-called "section 318" sales located within areas that had been designated as "late-successional" or "riparian reserves" under the Northwest Forest Plan. (Section 318 of the fiscal year 1990 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act required the agencies to offer certain amounts of timber in Washington and Oregon during fiscal years 1989 and 1990; a number of proposed sales under this provision were subsequently suspended for spotted owl or marbled murrelet concerns.)

The release of the suspended section 318 sales raised complex issues, including whether the sales altered overall habitat conditions on the lands subject to the Northwest Forest Plan to such an extent that it would diminish the ability of conservation strategies adopted by the Record of Decision to achieve their intended objectives. Also at issue was whether the harvest effects of Rescissions Act sales created a need to develop ecosystem-wide amendments to the Standards and Guidelines.

Ultimately the potential ecological impact of Rescissions Act sales was reduced. A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the action of the agencies in using a particular protocol to detect the presence of nesting marbled murrelets and in prohibiting harvests where that protocol indicated the existence of nesting murrelets. Other court decisions further curtailed the number of Rescissions Act sales actually harvested. In addition, impacts were lessened by the discovery of additional nesting birds, as well as by agency efforts to negotiate contract modifications with purchasers and otherwise to mitigate sale effects or provide replacement volume. The Rescissions Act resulted in the harvest of 2,032 acres located within late-successional reserves, 1,102 acres within riparian reserves, and 4,064 acres in key watersheds. These figures represent approximately 0.03 percent, 0.04 percent, and 0.04 percent of the total acreage in those categories.

A review conducted by the agencies concluded that although Rescissions Act harvests in key watersheds and riparian reserves constituted a short-term departure from the aquatic conservation strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan at the site scale, and although "local sale effects may delay recovery or offset restoration efforts in certain watersheds," nonetheless, "these local effects will not adversely affect the overall efficacy of the aquatic conservation strategy at the ecosystem-wide scale." Similarly, the impact on the terrestrial conservation strategy was judged not to be significant at an ecosystem-wide scale. Fundamental ecological assumptions were determined to be unchanged, and the agencies concluded that there was no need to develop amendments to the Standards and Guidelines.

Recently, the Forest Service has indicated that annual timber sale levels will be reduced for eight of the thirteen national forests in Oregon and Washington that are subject to the Northwest Forest Plan. The bulk of these reductions (57 million board feet) relate to the correction of errors, based on new information from applying on the ground the requirements in the Record of Decision. Examples of new information include finding more miles of streams, identification of additional "inoperable" slivers of land between riparian reserves, and errors in the original modeling of probable sale quantities. Additional reductions may be proposed and analyzed through the plan amendment process. These reductions would be for such factors as changes in objectives for adaptive management areas, extension of rotations, changes in regeneration schedules, and increasing residual volume in matrix areas based on resource values.

Further reductions could occur in the fiscal year 1999 and 2000 annual programs, depending on how certain issues are resolved that relate to the schedule for "survey and manage" activities.

Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. The Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative was designed to recognize the plight of and directly help those workers, businesses, tribes, and communities in northern California, Oregon, and Washington that were affected by reductions in federal timber harvests. This initiative is also a new way of doing business: the federal government works in partnership with state, tribal, and local officials, and representatives of the nonprofit and private sectors, to identify priority needs and then streamline assistance to help retrain dislocated workers, encourage and support investment and business retention and expansion, and develop infrastructure and much-needed professional capacity for economic development in hard-pressed communities.

The federal financial commitment, announced as part of the Northwest Forest Plan, is to make $1.2 billion available to the region over five fiscal years, beginning in October 1993. Seven federal departments with 16 different programs are participating financially; three other federal agencies participate in the initiative by providing technical assistance and leadership. The initiative has been funded largely without additional appropriations for the participating agencies, though Congress has played a significant role in ensuring the availability and use of monies for certain programs within the region. The amounts available exceeded $248 million in fiscal year 1994, $268 million in 1995, $209 million in 1996, and $203 million in 1997.

The initiative brings four broad types of assistance to the region: assistance to individuals aimed at the intermediate-term effects of retraining dislocated workers and supporting their families; assistance to business and industry aimed at existing businesses and diversifying the business base throughout the region; assistance in developing the community infrastructure and technical capacity to help communities make the transition to an economically and environmentally sustainable future; and ecosystem investment aimed at providing short-term jobs, through a "Jobs in the Woods" program that works to restore the region's watersheds to environmentally sustainable conditions.

The region enjoys several advantages as a result of the initiative. The clearest advantage is that federal agencies reprioritize the use of funds to favor projects in communities and areas that are affected by changes in federal forest policy. Without the initiative, available funds would not likely have been targeted to provide assistance in timber-affected communities. A second advantage comes from the programs that are funded partly or wholly from national sources. Without the initiative, such funds would likely not have reached the region. Third, funds that are passed through to state agencies allow the states the flexibility to develop their unique priorities and uses, and to adjust those priorities and uses through experience.

An additional advantage comes from increased coordination and planning among federal agencies, and between federal agencies and state, tribal, and local governments. These agencies are undergoing their own culture changes and are improving their ability to work collectively and more effectively towards a common goal.

It is much easier to tally the dollars available and spent on initiative programs than it is to determine the direct impact of those dollars on individuals, businesses, and communities. However, an early estimate by state and federal officials responsible for the different programs in the initiative was that 14,799 job-related effects resulted from the federal monies spent during fiscal year 1995. Such effects include: workers finding employment after completing training programs; workers whose jobs were saved as a result of federal spending; job opportunities created during the year; and job opportunities expected to be created in future years. An additional 1,743 jobs were associated with the loan guarantees made by the Small Business Administration in the region during the same year.

The region has benefitted greatly from the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. On the other hand, it is also true that the expectations of some in the region have not been fulfilled. The region as a whole remains economically healthy, and some individuals and communities have adapted well to the new situation. However, there is no question that many are worse off than they were when federal timber sales were at higher levels than under the Northwest Forest Plan.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy. A significant feature of the Northwest Forest Plan is the four part approach to protection and enhancement of the aquatic system of the region -- riparian reserves, key watersheds, watershed analysis, and watershed restoration. These components work together to maintain and restore the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. The strategy focuses on watersheds as the fundamental building block of federal forest management. It encourages agencies to work together, across administrative boundaries, to manage resources on a watershed basis.

• Riparian Reserves. Riparian reserves are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and guidelines apply. Riparian reserve requirements limit or prohibit activities that would retard or prevent meeting the goals of the aquatic conservation strategy. Riparian reserves are designed to protect the full suite of aquatic ecosystem functions and provide connectivity across the landscapes for terrestrial species.

Historically, the agencies have managed riparian areas as "streamside management units," in which practices that might affect water quality, fish, and other aquatic resources would be modified to meet water-quality goals for each class of stream. Under the aquatic conservation strategy, standards and guidelines are more broadly designed to maintain and restore riparian structures and functions of streams, benefit riparian-dependent and forest-based species other than fish, enhance habitat conservation for organisms dependent on these transition areas, and provide corridors that connect habitats and reserves.

The Northwest Forest Plan prescribed initial reserve widths for protected riparian areas, and specified standards and guidelines for timber management, road construction and maintenance, grazing, recreation, minerals management, fire and fuels management, research, and restoration activities. The initial boundary widths were intended to remain in effect until modified following watershed and site analysis and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act documentation. However, agencies have found it difficult to analyze all of the processes and functions that were intended to be protected in riparian reserves. Consequently, few boundaries have been changed. Instead, agencies seem to be using watershed analysis to define appropriate management activities within the reserves rather than changing the boundaries themselves.

The agencies are field testing a module developed by an interagency, interdisciplinary team for assessing riparian reserves at the watershed and site scales. The module is designed to guide analyses considered necessary for designing management actions within riparian reserves or changing reserve boundaries. Given the very large spectrum of organisms, processes and functions intended to benefit from the interim reserve widths, such studies are costly, particularly in view of the fact that sufficient data would be needed to convince those who may be negatively affected by a boundary change that such a change is warranted.

• Key Watersheds. Key watersheds are those that provide or are expected to provide high quality fish habitat and water quality. They are divided into two tiers. Tier 1 key watersheds are those that contribute directly to the conservation of anadromous salmonids, bull trout, and other resident fish species. Tier 2 key watersheds are sources of high quality water, though they may not contain at-risk fish species.

One fundamental purpose for establishing key watersheds was to secure and restore aquatic habitat strongholds by reducing road densities and the associated legacy of adverse sediment, hydrologic and habitat fragmentation impacts associated with roads. The Record of Decision provides that for each mile of new road constructed in a key watershed, at least one mile of road should be decommissioned.

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have actively decommissioned roads to achieve a net reduction in road miles in key watersheds in response to this Northwest Forest Plan objective. The agencies are in the process of compiling data, by key watershed and administrative unit, to demonstrate the level of road reduction achieved to date.

• Watershed Analysis. Watershed analysis provides information at the watershed scale as the foundation for management actions such as stream and river enhancement projects, timber sales, and roads. Intended to provide managers with a basis for their decisions by serving as a systematic way to understand and organize ecosystem information and identify needed management actions, watershed analysis is also useful for helping people think on a landscape scale.

The following interagency products were developed with these objectives in mind, and are being implemented:

• An initial set of guidelines for incorporating watershed analysis into agency operations during the early period of implementation.

• An interagency process for selecting watersheds for priority attention, as well as for developing and selecting restoration projects to be funded in those watersheds. This resulted in a coordinated approach, generating maximum benefits with the resources available each year. These efforts are continuing at the watershed and provincial levels.

• A common methodology for conducting watershed analyses entitled Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis. Interagency use of this guide has increased the consistency with which watershed condition is assessed. The guide has also been adopted as the standard in watershed-scale ecosystem analysis east of the Cascade mountains.

• An accompanying set of analytical methods for approaching selected technical aspects of watershed analysis.

• A working draft approach to adjusting riparian reserve boundaries that is currently being tested.

The Forest Service conducted analysis for 98 watersheds in fiscal year 1995, 79 watersheds in 1996, and 67 watersheds in 1997, covering a total of over 15 million acres. The Bureau of Land Management in western Oregon conducted analyses on 550,197 acres in fiscal year 1995, 429,480 acres in 1996, and 294,997 acres in 1997. By the end of the current fiscal year, watershed analyses will have been completed for 79 percent of the area covered by the Northwest Forest Plan.

Although much has been done, it should be pointed out that for watershed analyses to be most effective, they should be capable of aggregation at the province, river basin, or other larger scale. The watershed analyses that have been done to date do not lend themselves to such aggregation. The federal regional executives made a conscious decision to give more discretion to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management line officers to deal with local problems by making watershed analyses "issue driven." Under the Watershed Analysis Guide, line officers were given the authority to define the issues to be addressed in each watershed and to decide how to answer the core set of questions. This process produced differences in the information that was collected and the way it was described. If the agencies are to move toward the "seamless web" of information advocated elsewhere in this report, the differences in watershed analyses will have to be addressed.

• Watershed Restoration. The watershed restoration program has dual goals: economic health and watershed health. The economic goal is to provide meaningful, family-wage jobs for local displaced timber workers. The watershed health goal is to work to restore the region's aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitats. The Record of Decision states that restoration activities should focus on protecting anadromous fish habitat, restoring riparian vegetation, and restoring instream habitat complexity.

While much of the aquatic conservation strategy is designed to protect natural ecosystem processes and functions to encourage natural recovery over time, the Northwest Forest Plan includes a watershed restoration component to help bridge the time gap in natural restoration by addressing priority restoration needs proactively. Watershed restoration is designed to restore currently degraded habitat conditions. The most important components are control and restoration of road-related runoff and sediment production, restoration of riparian vegetation, and restoration of in-stream habitat complexity.

Restoration programs have focused initially on arresting road-related erosion and silvicultural treatments in riparian reserves to restore large conifer canopies. Road-related restoration efforts include, in addition to road decommissioning and closures: storm damage repairs; road resurfacing; and culvert replacements to allow the passage of fish, flood flows, bedload, and woody debris. Riparian reserves have been treated through precommercial and commercial thinning and hardwood conversion to promote more rapid development of large conifers for large woody debris recruitment and shade. Instream restoration work to restore habitat complexity, such as large wood placement or creation of off-channel rearing habitat, has also been accomplished. However, the effects of these projects are recognized as inherently short term, and are generally accompanied by upslope and riparian restoration to achieve longer-term restoration benefits.

Much of the watershed restoration work has been accomplished through the Jobs in the Woods Program, with funding through the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Environmental Protection Agency. Emergency flood repair funding has been used to address many miles of road problems and stream road crossings. A variety of funding sources, including those related to timber sale mitigation, have been used to fund watershed restoration efforts.

The agencies currently lack a system for systematic tracking of watershed analysis and restoration accomplishments under the Northwest Forest Plan. An early attempt was made to develop a consistent reporting system for Jobs in the Woods projects. However, that system does not allow tracking of the specific geographic locations in which restoration has occurred, nor does it appear to include fiscal year 1997 restoration projects. This remains a significant shortcoming in the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, because many of the benefits and accomplishments of Northwest Forest Plan activities cannot be demonstrated.

It is possible, however, to identify dollars spent on the restoration projects. Jobs in the Woods funding has amounted to slightly over $31 million annually in fiscal years 1994 through 1997. Numerous contracts directed at local impacted communities provided displaced timber workers and others with new jobs restoring watersheds, riparian zones, and fish habitats.

Water Quality. According to the Forest Service, the Northwest Forest Plan represents "an unrivaled level of protection of water quality." The Environmental Protection Agency adds, "the full implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan is a cornerstone of the recovery of water quality on federal lands" within Northwest watersheds.

A good explanation of the relationship between water quality and the Northwest Forest Plan comes from a recent report to Congress by the General Accounting Office. The report notes that under the Plan, "riparian areas vital to protecting and enhancing aquatic and terrestrial resources are now preserved." In addition, timber harvesting and the construction of associated roads are carried out in a way that mitigates the adverse effects of those activities on water quality. More specifically:

"...[T]imber harvesters have developed methods to remove timber from hillsides that are less damaging to the soil than older practices. These newer practices leave trees and large, woody debris in riparian buffers to trap and filter sediment before it reaches streams. Additionally, new forest roads are designed to be more stable and to reduce the potential for failure. Finally, road drainage systems have been improved to reduce the amount of water and sediment delivered to streams."

The General Accounting Office also points out that prior to the Northwest Forest Plan, timber harvesting practices, and associated road construction, were not always designed to protect water quality. Those practices left a "legacy of water quality degradation" and continue to cause water quality problems. However, the Northwest Forest Plan is addressing those problems through watershed restoration efforts.

"Restoration efforts include controlling and preventing road-related runoff and sediment production by closing and stabilizing (decommissioning) some roads and upgrading others, by removing soil from locations where there is a high potential for erosion, modifying road drainage systems to reduce the extent to which the road functions as an extension of the stream network, and reconstructing stream crossings. These efforts also include restoring riparian vegetation and, to prevent instream erosion, adding back large, woody debris into the streams from which it was removed."

Streamlined Consultation Procedures. Consultation procedures under the Endangered Species Act have been streamlined by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of conflicts between listed species and proposed agency actions. Under the procedures, regulatory and land management agencies can assume that most proposed actions will not jeopardize listed species if these actions are consistent with guidance, such as the Northwest Forest Plan, that has already undergone section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act.

Under the streamlined process, there is a systematic interagency approach to issue identification and resolution. Interagency consultation guidelines are reviewed annually to incorporate new regional guidelines and national policies that have been issued during the year. In addition, the land management agencies have agreed upon early and active involvement in project planning by the regulatory agencies. This early involvement has reduced resource conflicts relative to the Endangered Species Act, facilitated consultation by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, and provided greater assurance to the management agencies in their resource planning.

As a result of these streamlined procedures, consultation time frames for the Fish and Wildlife Service have been greatly reduced in the region, from over 135 days per timber sale consultation before the Northwest Forest Plan, to an average of no more than 60 days for formal consultations and 30 days for informal consultations. Recent consultations have averaged 32 days for formal consultations and 10 days for informal consultations.

All agencies are also moving toward a more programmatic and province-scale approach to consultations in the hope that it will further reduce staff time and workload and provide the land management agencies with greater certainty in project implementation. Although time frames on individual projects, such as timber sales, are shorter than before, the shift from project-by-project consultation to a larger-scale programmatic approach has not been easy. More time has been required to develop new methods, data bases, and other tools. However, the long-term benefits from this new approach should greatly exceed the short-term costs.

Data Management and Resource Information. The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team in 1993 found that the agencies' historical pattern of dealing with environmental issues on an individual site or planning unit basis left the region with data that were inconsistent from place to place and difficult to use with precision for analyses of natural resources issues at larger scales. There were few data standards among and within agencies, and only the most rudimentary understanding of the information required to deal with landscape issues on an interagency or ecosystem basis.

To correct these data and information deficiencies, an Interorganizational Resource Information Coordination Council was informally initiated in 1993 to assist agencies in improving geographic analysis and mapping capability for addressing regional policy issues. Two years later, the group was formalized as a subcommittee of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. It has served as a focal point for discussing multi-agency geographic information issues related to resource management. Each member was to maintain an awareness of the availability, strengths, and weaknesses of his or her agency's data as a basis for building a regional data set that would provide a context on which to build future maps and conduct map-related analyses.

Within the first few years of the Northwest Forest Plan, individuals from the participating federal agencies, the States of California, Oregon, and Washington, and tribal representatives came together with determination to improve resources data. Accomplishments include:

• Vegetation Data Standards. Substantial progress has been made on terrestrial data issues. The federal agencies have agreed on 14 core standards for characterizing vegetation, and all of the land management agencies are using these standards in the same way for new environmental assessments. A comprehensive effort to map current forest vegetation in support of Northwest Forest Plan monitoring efforts is in progress. The State of Oregon Department of Forestry has formally adopted the standards as well.

Though existing assessments were not updated to meet the new standards, and though they still represent different approaches, future vegetation data will become increasingly standardized as new assessments replace old ones.

• Fish and Hydrography Data Standards. The federal agencies adopted an initial core set of common aquatic standards. This is an important step, though the development of aquatic standards has lagged behind the development of terrestrial standards because less was known about aquatic species and their habitat requirements than about some terrestrial species, such as the northern spotted owl, and their habitat requirements. Fish listings under the Endangered Species Act, and the attendant needs to identify habitat requirements of the fish species, have occurred only recently.

The agencies developed a stream identification and data preparation system that significantly enhances the capability to share and cross reference aquatic and hydrology data among organizations. Prior to the Northwest Forest Plan, each agency divided streams along the watercourse in a different way, and maps could not be compared directly across agencies. Now, the agencies label stream reaches with a unique latitude and longitude identifier, and they have agreed on a hierarchical subdivision of river basins and watersheds, in which all agencies will use the "fifth field" hydrologic unit code as their basic unit of watershed analysis. Essentially, this means that the agencies will be working from the same set of maps. The States of Oregon and Washington have adopted the stream identification standards, and Oregon has adopted the watershed as a basic unit of analysis.

• Mapping Framework Data at a Common Scale. The federal agencies coordinated with the States of Oregon and Washington to produce thematic maps covering the two states at a scale of 1:24,000. Framework map themes include transportation (such as roads and railway lines), hydrology (such as streams and rivers), topography, ownership and public land survey. The federal agencies, states and localities pooled funds to purchase digital files from the U.S. Geological Survey to be used in the maps.

To support decisions under the Northwest Forest Plan, mapping efforts have been initiated or completed on: updated Northwest Forest Plan land use allocation boundaries; updated northern spotted owl suitable habitat; known nesting sites of the owl and murrelet; sites of Rescissions Act timber sales; interagency delineation of fifth field watersheds; known sites of "survey and manage" species; and stream survey sites. Under the Western Oregon Digital Image Project, the Bureau of Land Management is completing a project to map current forest vegetation in western Oregon to interagency data standards, for use by all of the participating entities.

• Information Sharing Activities. Several information management reports were produced. Information Needs Assessments helps partner agencies define common data requirements that will be standardized and cooperatively supported. Data Sharing and Distribution Strategies Across a Multi-Agency Distribution Network examines the use of the Internet to support information sharing. The IRICC Interagency Electronic Mail Guide provides a technological solution to facilitate electronic communications.

These accomplishments are substantial. However, as will be explained later in this report, much work remains to be done. The agencies are still a long way from achieving the "seamless data base" that was originally envisioned. There is some concern that the energy that attended the data management effort at the outset has been dissipated and that additional personnel and direction are required.

Research and Monitoring. The Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-successional and Old-growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl requires three different types of monitoring, each aimed at different management questions. The first, implementation monitoring, seeks to determine whether the procedural requirements in the Standards and Guidelines were carried out. The second, effectiveness monitoring, evaluates whether application of the management plan actually achieved the goals that were intended. The third, validation monitoring, goes yet a further step; it determines whether the underlying management assumptions, or the hypothesized relationships that were assumed by the management plan, are valid. Monitoring, in this broad context, must have a strong basis in research, for validation and interpretation of monitoring results.

Monitoring by its nature is a long-term proposition. Even so, short-term monitoring accomplishments have occurred. Implementation monitoring has been conducted to determine the extent to which the management actions have been put into place on the ground in a manner consistent with the Standards and Guidelines. Some effectiveness monitoring pre-dates the Northwest Forest Plan; for example, measurements of northern spotted owl birth and death rates have been taken since the early to mid-1980s. These studies are continuing at the ecosystem scale under the Northwest Forest Plan. Plans have been developed to conduct effectiveness monitoring at the ecosystem scale for other interests, including the marbled murrelet as well as the health of old-growth habitat itself. Moreover, under the coordinated leadership of the research agency executives, effectiveness monitoring plans are under development for several key topical areas, including aquatic and riparian areas, biodiversity and "survey and manage" species, tribal and trust resources, and social and economic effects. Finally, some initial thought has been given to ways in which to conduct validation monitoring.

All monitoring conducted for the Northwest Forest Plan is intended to measure effects of all agencies' actions at the ecosystem scale -- in this case, the scale of the Northwest Forest Plan. This is a significant departure from traditional monitoring that is conducted on an agency-by-agency basis at various scales that coincide with individual agency jurisdictions or with specific project boundaries. Agencies will continue to monitor their own project activities at the project scale. However, if the potential of the Northwest Forest Plan is achieved, agencies will be able to use common approaches and scales, and to apply ecosystem-scale monitoring results to their own uses.

There have been several major highlights of research and monitoring over the last five years:

• Interagency Organizations. Various interagency teams have been established. For instance, the research and monitoring committee has, among other things, reviewed and reported on the degree to which research activities ongoing at the time of the Record of Decision should continue. A research and monitoring group has facilitated increased involvement of the research agency executives in the development of scientifically credible research and monitoring plans. A regional team -- the regional implementation monitoring team -- and parallel province-level teams have conducted reviews of timber sales, roads and restoration projects. These extensive federal interagency and intergovernmental groups have increased the level of understanding and trust among the participants as Northwest Forest Plan projects are implemented.

• Implementation Monitoring. In 1996, a pilot implementation monitoring effort evaluated a sample of FY 1995 timber sales and found a compliance rate of about 95 percent with the Standards and Guidelines contained in the Record of Decision. Furthermore, adverse ecological effects associated with instances of non-compliance appeared to be minimal at the regional scale.

A 1997 implementation monitoring review is nearing completion. The 1997 program examined not only timber sales but roads and restoration projects as well. Though the report is not yet final at the time of this report, indications are that compliance with the Standards and Guidelines during 1997 continued to exceed 95 percent.

Plans to continue this effort into the next year are in progress. The proposed 1998 implementation monitoring program consists of two parts. The first will be continued review of timber sales and associated roads, with sales stratified by size and administrative unit. The second, to be established initially as a pilot effort, is an implementation module for assessing compliance and progress towards actions to address the landscape or watershed scale Standards and Guidelines.

It would be useful in future implementation monitoring assessments to determine whether non-compliance represents random events, or whether there are patterns that should be addressed, such as localities or types of standards and guidelines that represent higher levels of non-compliance.

• Effectiveness Monitoring. The agencies developed an effectiveness monitoring framework, described in a report entitled Effectiveness Monitoring for the Northwest Forest Plan. Modules for late successional and old-growth forests, the northern spotted owl, and the marbled murrelet have been finalized as part of the effectiveness monitoring plan and are being implemented. Monitoring plans for aquatic and riparian systems and American Indians and their culture are under development. The research executives and the Regional Ecosystem Office are developing directions for initiating alternative development efforts dealing with biodiversity, "survey and manage" species, and social and economic effects. Through the process of developing and initiating implementation of the framework, the group achieved a high level of interagency agreement and cooperation, and the various agencies accepted non-traditional roles and responsibilities in their contributions toward the overall monitoring effort.

Though the agencies have made progress in preparing for effectiveness monitoring, as well as validation monitoring, it should be noted that progress has been slow in the actual implementation of these types of monitoring, as noted elsewhere in this report.

• Strategic Research Plan. The agencies developed and published in early 1998 a draft Strategic Research Plan to Support Implementation of the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. As in the case of management generally, agencies tend to conduct research that is focused on, and often limited to, their own missions and programs. Thus, the benefit of this strategic plan is that it identifies the areas of research necessary to meet the broader objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan and provides a framework for interagency coordination. Though it is still in draft form, research agencies are proceeding to implement the strategic research plan in 1998 under the advice of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and the direction of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Updates and revisions to the strategy are expected on an annual basis.

Late-Successional Reserves. The Northwest Forest Plan is built in part around a system of late-successional reserves, designed to protect late-successional and old-growth-dependent species of concern over the long run. The agencies developed a single, joint interagency process for reviewing proposed actions in reserves and a single, joint standard for reserve assessments.

The assessments are to guide future agency actions in reserves, incorporating the eight elements specified in the Standards and Guidelines. A joint interagency work group developed guidance to help field units incorporate the required elements into project plans. The agencies also developed two sets of criteria to exempt precommercial and commercial thinning projects in late-successional reserves from subsequent project-level review by the Regional Ecosystem Office. Additional exemptions are included within individual assessments. To date, assessments for 5.5 million acres in late-successional reserves (approximately 74 percent of the total late-successional reserve acreage) have been completed and reviewed.

Adaptive Management Areas. The Record of Decision established adaptive management areas as unique areas in which federal agencies can work together with each other, other organizations, tribes, local and state governments, and the public, to meet an area's specific goals and objectives. According to the Standards and Guidelines, the areas are "landscape units designed to encourage the development and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives." The areas "provide a diversity of biological challenges, intermixed land ownerships, natural resource objectives, and social contexts." In these areas, localized, idiosyncratic approaches would "provide managers with flexibility, discretion, and opportunity to adapt practices to local circumstances." Connections to local communities were to be fostered. It has been said that adaptive management areas "offer both the responsibility and the opportunity to begin to learn how to more effectively manage the regional landscape" and that "creative, learning-based management of adaptive management areas is essential to the long-term, successful implementation" of the Northwest Forest Plan. Adaptive management areas are settings in which guidelines may be "examined, tested, and potentially modified for application across the wider landscape."

There are currently ten adaptive management areas throughout the Northwest Forest Plan area, most on Forest Service lands and about half involving shared management with the Bureau of Land Management.

The Record of Decision provides that all adaptive management areas are to have a plan that contains ten elements: a shared vision of the adaptive management area; knowledge required to meet the objectives of the area; the strategy that will be used to guide implementation, restoration, monitoring, and experimental activities; a short-term timber sale plan and long-term projections; methods, approaches, and content for educating participants and stakeholders; identification of the various communities that will be involved in the adaptive management area activity; community strategies, resources, and partners that will be used to advance ideas for the adaptive management area; coordination mechanisms that will be used; a funding plan; and a plan for integrating community strategies and technical objectives. For some managers, there is only limited understanding of how the adaptive management areas "relate to the wider scheme of forest management and especially to the implementation of ecosystem management."

Plans for adaptive management areas lag behind expectations. However, plans for seven areas have been submitted and reviewed by a work group that was chartered to review such plans and to assist the regional federal executives in interpreting relevant policy issues that arise from the plans. More will be said on adaptive management in the section of this report on "future directions."

Northern Spotted Owl. While the ultimate impact of implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan will contribute significantly to the recovery of the northern spotted owl, it must be remembered that the owl is a long-lived species that dwells in a forest environment that changes very slowly over time. The most recent range-wide analysis of demographic data on spotted owl population trends pre-dates the Northwest Forest Plan and indicates a continuing downward trend. The first range-wide results from spotted owl demographic or population trend studies conducted since implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan are due to be reported early in 1999.

It is expected that the population of owls will continue to decline as habitat is lost. These losses will occur as habitats outside the late-successional reserves are harvested to support the local timber demand. However, over the next 50 years, the spotted owl habitat removed under the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan is expected to be replaced by habitat regenerating within the protected reserves. As habitat inside the reserves improves, the amount of habitat throughout the owl's range, and corresponding owl populations, are expected to stabilize and eventually increase.

"Survey and Manage." The Northwest Forest Plan had as one of its primary ecological goals the development of land use allocations and other standards and guidelines for the management of habitat for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests. Some of those lesser known species (including some amphibians and mammals, as well as bryophytes, mollusks, vascular plants, fungi, lichens, and arthropods) presented a particularly difficult challenge, because so little is known about their abundance, location, life cycle needs, and habitat associations.

To accommodate lesser-known species, the Plan incorporates an ecosystem-wide, interagency approach to surveying for them and recommending appropriate management actions (hence the term "survey and manage") when these species are located. Under prior administrative arrangements, this could have led to an agency-by-agency approach. Instead, under the Northwest Forest Plan, an interagency team has been developing joint interagency survey methods and management recommendations.

An interagency and intergovernmental data base reflecting the location of all known sites has been developed and distributed to all field units covered by the Northwest Forest Plan for their use as they develop and implement actions such as timber sales under the Plan. In addition, proposed standardized search protocols have been published for use for several species groups. A geographic "interagency species management system," which provides location and habitat information, has been developed and will be operational in the near future.

The commitment to coordinate in advance through the interagency workgroup process has been of benefit to managers, who otherwise would have to develop and justify survey and management protocols on their own -- an almost insurmountable task. It significantly reduces the risk of individual agencies adopting separate and potentially inconsistent approaches, and it increases the likelihood that these little-known species will be preserved over the long term.

The development of survey protocols, and the cataloging of life histories, habitat requirements, and species ranges, remain a challenge. Even with the interagency coordination, for a minority of the "survey and manage" species the agencies have been unable to develop survey protocols, conduct surveys, and develop recommendations for managing habitat. The difficulties have arisen in part due to the fact that only a few experts can identify some of the species using laboratory techniques, the lack of in-depth knowledge about the methods to identify and detect the presence of the species, and the need in the case of some species to conduct surveys over a number of years. Moreover, some species appear to be improperly classified.

The authors of the Standards and Guidelines understood that these difficulties might arise, and suggested flexibility to change the schedules as experience dictates. It is likely that the agencies will consider whether changes should be made in the near term to deal with schedule requirements relating to some species. It is also likely that the agencies will propose a broad review and analysis to address the larger issues raised by "survey and manage" and "protection buffer" implementation. This would include collecting and summarizing new information, evaluating potential changes, and conducting a public review process.

LESSONS LEARNED

Several unique aspects of the political and economic environment that existed in the Pacific Northwest prior to implementing the Northwest Forest Plan are unlikely to exist in many other regions, nor would they be desirable. The level and intensity of the crisis in the region dictated the greatest commitment from the highest levels of government, for the problem had become impossible for the region to resolve on its own. The direct and personal involvement of the President, Vice President, and several cabinet members was necessary to get the issue off dead center. It is possible that little of the interagency collaboration would have occurred had it not been imposed in a top-down fashion, starting with the President and Vice President, and continuing with the interagency Memorandum of Understanding and the Record of Decision signed jointly by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior.

While many resource problems might benefit from the high-level attention that was given to Pacific Northwest forests, the top-down approach used in the Northwest may be inappropriate in many situations. Furthermore, the extent and complexity of interagency coordination and public participation that was incorporated into the Northwest Forest Plan may be too elaborate, and perhaps too costly, to replicate in most other areas.

On the other hand, the thrust of the effort in the Pacific Northwest is toward balancing economic, social, and ecological interests, toward landscape-level planning, toward collaborative agency efforts, and toward broader public participation. Surely that thrust represents the wave of the future -- and not just in the Northwest. The Northwest Forest Plan marks a fundamental change in the way agencies carry out their missions, and, accordingly, it should be a reference point for other agency efforts involving conflict in resource management.

Some of the specific elements of the Northwest Forest Plan that could, in varying degree, be implemented elsewhere, are summarized below:

Development of an Interagency "Vision"

Because of the depth and intractability of the controversy in the Pacific Northwest that existed in the early 1990s, a top-down approach to establishing a vision for the region was probably the only viable alternative. Any effort to make simplistic choices among the many competing visions was bound to fail, as was simple encouragement to "cooperate." Thus, in this instance, a single strong voice was needed to end the crisis and facilitate movement toward a common goal.

That common goal was provided initially by President Clinton, when he established a vision for the region and articulated the principles on which implementation would be based. All subsequent activities aimed at implementing the Northwest Forest Plan have followed this vision, and all federal agencies have been directed to march to the same drumme