This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Reducing Barriers to Assessing
Sustainability in the U.S. 1
Albert Abee 2
Abstract-Long-term sustainability must be a driving force for
managers of natural resources. Although sustainable development
has gained worldwide prominence, key difficulties in making
progress towards that goal have been: the inability of resource
managers to adequately communicate across ownerships; to integrate environmental, economic and social issues; and to make
consistent measures of progress toward assessing sustainability.
Coupled with these challenges, even with a framework for measuring national criteria and indicators, is the difficulty of reconfiguring
the operational programs of diverse land management entities to
integrate such a framework. The Criteria and Indicators (C&I) of
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) internationally agreed to
by the 12 countries of the Montreal Process, have provided a
monitoring framework for assessing sustainable forest management nationally. The USDA Forest Service (FS) has adopted the
C&I and is in the process of institutionalizing them within the
agency. Key components ofthe FS strategy for institutionalizing the
C&I include broad based support from a wide constituent base;
support and advocacy of top management; an administrative team
to facilitate plan implementation, and a specific action plan to
implement Criteria and Indicators internally. This paper presents
the context for the national measurement system and the need for
and benefits of adopting the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicator framework for SFM. The FS approach to incorporating the
C&I framework as a national tool to assess the outcomes of management activities is also presented.
Building a Bridge to the Next
Century of Resource
Management
Social health and public welfare are affected by and
dependent upon natural resources and the management of
the landscapes in which they occur. There is increased
recognition nationally and internationally that long-term
sustainability must be a driving force for managers of
natural resources. The goal of sustainability is predicated on
the notion that we cannot meet the needs of people without
concurrently securing the health of the land and visa-versa.
The United Nation's Bruntland Commission acknowledged
this in 1989 and called for sustainable development to,
Ipaper presented at the North American Science Symposium: Toward a
Unified Framework for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem
Resources, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 1-6,1998.
2Albert Abee is the National Coordinator for Sustainable Development,
National Forest System, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 96090 Stop Code
1104, Washington Office Headquarters, located at Auditors Building,
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090 U.S.A.
166
"meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs (1)."
Further impetus to act on the issue of sustainability
stems from the signing of Agenda 21 from the 1992 UN
Conference on Environment and Development (2). In this
historic agreement the role of sustaining forests and communities was formally acknowledged by the community of
nations. Based upon this commitment, The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) was established to
provide advice on how to move the country towards a more
sustainable future. To help harmonize national land use
plans and activities, the Administration identified policy
recommendations and actions to help guide the next century
of land management (3, 4). Related to the U.S's ability to
collaboratively manage for and measure indicators of sustainability, these policies have four desired outcomes (5).
Improved Understanding for Informed
Decision Making
To better enable informed decision making, managers
need to promote understanding of resources conditions,
trends, and relationships through: science and technology;
education & training; and by sharing information & data.
Science & Research should focus research in highest priority
areas and to develop standard environmental indicators,
protocols, and performance measures. Education & Training should focus on providing training in public involvement
techniques to: endorse and promote educational material
that improves awareness of environmental and social benefits of sustainable development; to develop extension activities translating science into everyday language; and to
bring science information to communities. Information and
Data processes should bring stakeholders together to
collaboratively develop common data standards, formats,
collection methods, and to develop public data-sharing and
delivery systems.
Improved Planning Strategies to
Reconnect a Fragmented Landscape
Managers should work towards reconnecting a fragmented
landscape by promoting planning strategies that are anchored in communities, regional in scope, and interagency
in design. Anchoring land use plans in communities will
foster opportunities to move away from a federally focused
governmental decision-making structure towards a collaborative design that shares responsibility among levels of
government. Similarly, agencies are encouraged to take an
interagency approach to harmonize respective resource
management/land use plans and to do landscape planning
independent of jurisdictional lines.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Promote Shared Responsibility for the
Accomplishment of Work
United States as an example, what qualities should a national measurement framework have?
Managers should use incentives and partnerships to promote shared responsibility for data Iathering, monitoring,
and management. Use Incentives to increase cost effectiveness of existing regulatory systems by expanding the roles
played by states, counties, and local communities, and to
increase cost recovery and establish market based incentives for protection and good stewardship oflands. Develop
partnerships to shift the focus from centralized environmental regulation organized around separate programs/
agencies to protect land and water resources, to a comprehensive place-based approach where responsibility is shared
with stakeholders. In such cases, the federal role is adjusted
to monitoring and assuring agreed upon performance-based
standards are achieved in the process of shared responsibility. To realize efficiencies and to expand the use of the
ecosystem approach to land management, share personnel
and facilities with both federal and nonfederal sectors.
National Measurement Frameworks
Should Focus on Key "Vital Signs"
Practice Adaptive Management in
Response to New Information
Management needs to be responsive to new information
and emerging needs. In practicing adaptive management,
work with other government agencies to improve services
and to establish a more "seamless" government. Managers
should consider establishing monitoring and evaluation
systems that assess progress from performance measures
rooted in national standards. Policy and guidance should
be reviewed to assess statutes and regulations to remove
barriers to collaboration and the development of partnerships. During such reviews, managers should identify comparative advantages and strategic niches of public natural
resources to local communities to assist them in sustainable
development.
All of the policy recommendations forwarded by the
President's Administration were designed to foster the ecosystem approach to management, which is the means towards the goal of sustain ability across a multiple ownership
landscape.
Qualities of a National Framework
to Measure Sustainability _ _ __
The concept of sustainable development has gained
worldwide prominence. Difficulties in making progress
towards the goal of sustainable development have been the
inability to adequately communicate between neighboring
land managers; to integrate environmental, economic and
social issues; and to take comparable measures across a
landscape comprised of multiple ownerships.
Traditional inventory and monitoring approaches that
were resource-specific and individually driven, served us
well for the last several decades. However; such piecemeal
approaches no longer meet the operational needs of today
and of future generations. As implied in the desired outcomes of the policy recommendations mentioned, we need a
more integrated and comprehensive approach. Using the
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
The policy and management framework of the United
States is diverse. There exists a set offederal environmental laws (i.e., National Environment Protection Act, National Forest Management Act, Federal Land Planning
Management Act, Sustained Yield and Multiple Use Acts,
Clean Air & Water Acts, T&E Species, Reclamation Act,
etc.), that apply to either federal and/or all lands including
federal, state, private, and industrial. This body of federal
laws is augmented by an eclectic set of state laws of our 50
states, and multiple sets of county ordinances reflecting
differences within states. Added to these legal requirements
are the different missions, objectives, and regulatory frameworks of a host of resource management organizations that
manage land and carry out activities designed to meet
human needs.
Multiple ownership patterns also add to the operational
complexity. For example, ofthe 489 million acres of commercial forestland, 58% is managed by over six million land
owners; 15% by forest industries; 17% by USFS; and 10% by
other public agencies (6). Coupled to this complexity are
species distribution patterns and habitat needs that are
independent of ownership boundaries; the variable location
and nature of vital commodities; and customer demands
for more frequent updating of inventory data. Thus, it is
easy to understand why monitoring and inventory systems
can quickly become an ever rising tide offunding and information needs.
Similar to the medical profession's approach to monitoring the vital signs of the complex human body, a national
assessment framework should reflect a "vital signs" approach designed to take the pulse of the living landscape.
National Measurement Frameworks
Should Integrate Social, Economic, and
Biological "Vital Signs" and Link to Key
Indices of Sustainability
The complexity of the American way of meeting human
needs has proven to be both a blessing and a curse. A
curse in that, on an aggregated basis, land use activities
often playas a cacophony of unrelated and conflicting
activities rather than as a harmonic symphony. A blessing is
that the national body of environmental law and legislation not only provides a national multiple use framework
based on the principles of sustainability, but mandates the
protection of land and water resources concurrent to meeting the social demands for raw materials and services.
The value of our nation's resource management organizations is not to be found in our management diversity,
mission, or even our legal framework-however important, but
in the measurable outcomes that reflect our collective actions.
Healthy ecosystems and sustainable economies are goals
shared by national, county, state, private, and industrial
ownerships alike. In this respect Sustainable Development
167
should be viewed as a three-prong stool: ecosystems must be
healthy, economies must be sound, and communities must
be strong in order to fully meet the needs and expectations
of people (7, 8). National measurement frameworks should
integrate a set of social, economic, and biological "vital signs"
and link to key indices of sustainability.
National Measurement Frameworks Should
Link Ownerships Across the Landscape
Although sustainability has become an explicitly stated
and legislatively mandated goal of natural resource management agencies, in practice our collective approach has often
fallen short of maintaining the health and sustainability of
landscapes. A primary reason for this failure, is that to one
degree or another, land managing agencies that share responsibility for managing land within a common landscape
often worked in isolation; managed along administrative
lines; and often managed for a single purpose. Specifically:
• There is no integrated, unifying framework for working
across the landscape with different owners to help enable
complimentary assessments and desired conditions.
• There is no common language of integrated data standards and protocols to provide for assessments and
planning processes across the diverse landscape.
Concurrent to this piecemeal approach to planning and
management, federal agencies had in place a federally
focused governmental decision-making structure that was
more input and comment based rather than fully collaborative in true partnership. Shared planning, decision making,
and management responsibility across levels ofgovernment
and with communities of interest was not widely practiced.
In hind sight, however well-intentioned, the historical
approach to management of natural resources contributed
to multiple environmental problems, as well as to the halt of
orderly management. A case in point is the Pacific NW where
concern over the habitat needs of the spotted owl resulted in
litigation that totally shut do~n traditional timber harvest
activities. The needs of the spotted owl required a regional
approach and perspective to resolve habitat problems and
public concern. To measure the pulse of the landscape
through a set of vital signs, requires that a National measurement framework be inclusive of all major ownerships.
National Measurement Frameworks
Should Promote Collaborative
Stewardship
A good thing that has evolved from our experience is the
emergence of ecosystem based approaches (9,10,11) and the
notion of collaborative stewardship, where people work
together to achieve common objectives. Currently federal,
state and private agencies spend millions of dollars on
measurements without the assurance that these measurements are additive or that they are providing the information to measure performance and progress in assuring longterm sustain ability of America's forests. Lacking evidence
and the ability to portray "health of the land," creates an
atmosphere of concern and distrust increasing the polarization of groups interested in natural resources. It also makes
the nation vulnerable to the tyranny of crisis management.
168
Collaborative stewardship focuses on partners working
together and sharing information with the hope of establishing and recognizing common ground and linkages, that
when acted upon, will yield on an aggregated basis, a more
holistic and complimentary approach to natural resource
management. The desired outcome is healthy ecosystems
and sustainable economies while respecting each others
unique roles, responsibilities, and land use objectives. National measurement frameworks should promote collaborative stewardship with shared responsibility.
The Montreal Process Criteria and
Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management Provides a Unifying
National Measurement Framework
for Assessing Progress Toward
Sustainability _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
The Criteria and Indicators (C&I) of Sustainable Forest
Management (SFM) internationally agreed to by the 12
countries of the Montreal Process, is providing a unifying
framework for measuring the ''vital signs" and assessing
sustainable forest management (12). Briefly, the United
States worked with eleven other countries through the
Montreal Process to produce a set of criteria for evaluating
sustainable management offorests. The C&I are a relatively
simple statement of seven key goals (criteria), with associated measurements (indicators), designed to promote an
understanding of what constitutes sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests.
The seven criteria are: Conservation of Biological Diversity; Maintenance of Productive Capacity of Ecosystems;
Maintenance of Ecosystem Health and Vitality; Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources; Maintenance of Forest Contributions to Global Carbon Cycles;
Maintenance and Enhancement ofLong-term Multiple SocioEconomic Benefits to Meet the Needs of Societies; and Legal,
Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Management. The Forest Service
has adopted these C&I (13, 14) and will work with partners
to include grassland as appropriate.
These criteria and indicators for sustainable forest and
grassland management then provide an integrated, unifying
framework for the development of common data standards
and protocols for working across the landscape. This assessment framework will facilitate collaborative evaluation,
planning, and decision efforts among governments, interest
groups, and neighboring land managers to address common
interests.
FS Action Strategy to Implement the
National Measurement Framework
to Assess Sustainability _ _ __
Other leaders offederal agencies, the States, environmental and industry NGO's (15, 16, 17, 18) also recognize and
support the need for measuring the status, trends, and
conditions of our nation's forests and grasslands. Early in
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
1997, the National Association of State Foresters requested
that the Forest Service playa leadership role in fostering
SFM on all U.S. forests.
The Forest Service developed a detailed Action Plan (19)
identifying specific steps and processes involved in institutionalizing the C&I into operational programs. The scope of
the Action Plan, while featuring internal implementation,
included processes and linkages to other external initiatives designed to implement C&I nationwide.
The Action Plan includes a range of activities that need to
be accomplished concurrently and interactively with the
other tasks, but it does not identify priority of the tasks and
actions. The intent is to facilitate collaboration and ensure
that critical steps are not overlooked or lag behind. The
Action Plan identifies major tasks leading to institutionalization of the national-level Criteria and Indicators within
the Forest Service. The Action Plan reflects a phased approach to implementation and identifies the first steps that
must be taken (What); the accountable person(s) within the
FS that will convene the action (Who); and the expected
completion date (When).
Collaboration is the Heart of the Action Plan
A foundational value ofthe FS is that the FS does not have
all the answers and cannot achieve the goal of sustainabili ty
alone. This section of the Action Plan is to continue communications with existing stakeholders group and further diversify and expanrl collaboration with other parties as appropriate. The task is to develop shared roles and
responsibilities for taking and reporting measurements related to the national C&I framework.
• Maintain and develop collaborative relationships and
processes with stakeholders and partners involved in
implementation of national criteria and indicators. An
example of the level of detail provided in the Action Plan
is reflected in (a) below.
(a) What: Develop plan for "round table event" involving
Chief, stakeholders, partners, and other agency policy level
representatives, to encourage interagency and stakeholder
involvement. Who: Sustainable Development Issue Team.
When: Plan for event approved by 1/98.
Status as of Sept. 16, 1998: Completed 7/14/98. Participants pledged to work together to develop a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to define the respective roles responsibilities of cooperating agencies to populate the measurement framework.
• Continue liaison with Montreal Proces[;. Maintain Forest
Service involvement in international processes related
to sustainable development. Ensure an open conduit to
Technical Advisory Committee of the Montreal Process
and other international activities as appropriate.
• Maintain participation in administration sustainable
development activities. Maintain Forest Service involvement in White House, USDA Council on Sustainable
Development, Interagency groups and initiatives related to sustainable development. Coordinate C&I framework with national data standardization activities of
the Federal Geographic Data Committee.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Development of Indicators to Enable Full
Field Implementation
This section of the Action Plan is to enable populating the
C&I framework with data. The plan provides for technical
refinement of criteria and the development of standard data
sets and collection protocols to facilitate communication
between partners.
• Conduct a process to refine the set of67 indicators. With
the involvement of stakeholders and partners evaluate
the effectiveness of the indicators in assessing status
and trends of Sustainable Forest Management at a
national scale. This process includes identifying what
information is available, who has it, data comparability,
and gaps in information needs. It also provides for parallel processes designed to develop criteria for grassland.
• Consistency in reporting. Continue development of data
definitions, inventory and monitoring protocols, and
reporting procedures for indicators at a national scale to
ensure consistency and compatibility across jurisdictions and ownerships. This process includes establishing new roles and responsibilities related to shared
responsibility for collecting information nation wide.
The outcome would be an interagency, nationwide platform from which information can be collected over time.
Strategic Direction through Incorporation
of C&I into Strategic Planning Documents
This section of the Action Plan is to establish strategic
direction, focus, and systems for accountability. The objective is to integrate the Montreal Process C&I framework into
the Agency's strategic plans, annual reports and performance plans, and monitoring and inventory systems, including development of strategic guidance to advance principles
of sustainability.
• Integrate criteria into resource assessment documents.
Utilize national resource assessment as the Forest Service synthesis and reporting mechanism for the Montreal
Process C&I at the national level, integrating the Criteria into the framework for the Resource Planning Act
(RPA) Assessment.
• Integrate Montreal Process C&I framework into the NFS
information management structures. Incorporate C&I into
all resource planning, inventories, and monitoring systems, recognizing the relevance of scale in each process.
• Integrate C&I into corporate data sets collected from national inventory grid systems. Incorporate national scale
measurement protocols for the Montreal Process indicators
into national plot procedures and extend grids to cover all
forestlands, taking into account the National Resources
Inventory and other existing inventory capabilities.
• Collect data and information on the status ofthe Nation's
forests at the national level using the Montreal Process
C&1. Allow incorporation in each 5-year update of the
national RPA assessment. Assess the relationship between currently collected information versus what is
needed with C&I and identify possible cost savings that
will help pay for C&I monitoring.
169
FS Progress in Implementing
the National Assessment
Framework -------------------------------Democratic and collaborative processes are foundational
to the American tradition. The FS has a rich history of
developing partnerships with external communities, organizations, individuals, and who have an interest in the
outcome ofFS management activities.
The FS has established a formal collaborative relationship with other federal agencies, the NASF, professional
societies, and a set of NGOs to work together. to develop a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to define the responsibilities of cooperating agencies and partners committed to populate the national C&I framework for SFM. The
partners agreed to: participate in scientific teams examining the C&I to establish a common list of national level,
ecological, social and economic measures and protocols; to
identify current sources of information; seek to establish a
collaborative national inventory platform from which to
gather data; and collect and report on indicators specific to
agency missions; and to develop a National Report on Sustainable Forest Management by 2003.
The FS has restructured the national RPA Assessments
dealing with forests to conform to the Montreal Criteria.
Documents will address the question-What are the status
and trends of U.S. forests in relation to the forest management indicators? The Agency is also in the process of restructuring national strategic objectives and outcome measures in the Government Performance Results Act strategic
plan to reflect the Montreal Process C&I.
The FS is developing direction to link forest level planning
goals and objectives to the national strategic goals and
objectives. This will facilitate management unit level responsiveness to national SMF goals and establish accountability structures. We have also begun the incorporation of
the C&I into national, regional, and local corporate inventory and monitoring measurement systems. (For example,
at the national level, the FS National Inventory and Monitoring Program can provide data on 18 of the 28 biological
indicators noted in Criteria 1-5. Work will continue to help
answer more of the data needs).
The National Association of State Foresters has adopted
the Montreal Process C&I as a goal and some states are in
the process of conducting State assessments using the C&I.
Lessons Learned -------------------------It is important to build support within your own agency.
A shared national vision internally builds momentum locally. Confusion can be avoided by gaining understanding of
what the specific objectives are and how such add value to
respective partners (20).
Building support and developing partnerships with external customers is also critical to success. The FS does not have
all the answers and cannot solely accomplish SFM. Establishing collaborative processes through partnerships adds
value to FS efforts as well as to partners.
It takes a lot of energy to change the operational traditions of an organization. To provide focus and momentum,
establish an implementation team that represents the
170
Agency and select players that are highly motivated and
that believe in and want to be involved in the effort (21).
In order to assess forward progress a road map is necessary. Develop an Action Plan that identifies specific tasks
for operational implementation; responsible individual;
and time frame for completion. .
Keep focus on agreeing to goals and objectives and build on
consensus and common ground, rather than surfacing issues. Focusing on issues should be avoided in favor of
working toward broad consensus on goals and objectives
among local, regional, and national interests. When issues
arise, they should be intercepted and dealt with at the
appropriate scale. Work with willing partners respecting
each other's unique roles, responsibilities, and land use
objectives.
Generate Ownership at the Local Community Level
through Responsible Empowerment. Responsible leadership often comes from unsuspecting places. Allow participants to assume lead responsibility for processes and tasks
within defined decision space. As appropriate, the federal
role should be adjusted to monitor and assure that agreed
upon performance-based standards are achieved throughout the process of shared responsibility. Use a professional
facilitator to run the sessions to avoid the perception of a
"federally driven" process.
Use a Collaborative Decision-Making Process: Change
the paradigm. Planning strategies should move from
federally focused, governmental decision-making structures to collaborative designs that shares responsibility
among citizens and government. Involve all interested parties early in the process. Be confident in enabling and
encouraging shared responsibility for populating the national measurement framework with data. Do not impose
constraints but define outcomes with quality assurance.
Challenges to Implementation of
the Criteria and Indicators
While there is agreement that the "Montreal" Criteria
are sufficiently broad and well enough defined to be a
valuable framework for Sustainable Forest Management,
considerable technical examination--as a parallel process,
may be needed. While some indicators can be implemented
fairly soon, many are far from actual application.
Complexity and "turf' issues can delay progress. Developing
agreed upon protocols and data standards, ordevelopingmechanisms to provide compatibility between common but dissimilar
data sets requires flexibility and willingness to change.
We need to know more about issues of scale for the indicators and the appropriate protocols for different scales. For
example, what is the relationship between national level reporting and sub-nationallforestmanagement unit level operations?
Parallel to cooperative program activities designed to populate the C&I measurement framework; coordination of the
respective budgets of interagency partners is cumbersome.
Summary
American people love their land and together, everyday,
are discovering new ways that public health and social
welfare are linked to the health of the land. They expect
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
the resource management community to sustain the nation's
natural resources for future generations.
The nation continues to undergo significant changes that
affect land managers. The values that we manage for, the
scope of our work, and the partnerships involved have
especially expanded. Many resource assessments have moved
from piece-meal projects to regional assessments, enabling
a more holistic understanding of ecosystem processes and
social needs.
Legislation and regulation are important, but alone will
not achieve sustainable ecosystems, communities, and economies. Collaborative planning efforts are proving to be the
vehicle of choice for managers to reconnect the landscape; to
foster community understanding and the development of
shared goals; and is the primary integrator of the diversity
ofinterests wherein the nation has its stability and strength.
National measurement frameworks should focus on key
''vi tal signs" linked to sustainability; integrate social, economic,
and biological indices; be inclusive of all ownerships across
the landscape; and promote collaborative stewardship.
The adoption of the Montreal Process framework of C&I
will go far in helping to establish a common language and
operational framework for bringing the community of interests together to do collaborative national assessments of
sustainable forest management.
Bibliography
1. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987,
Our Common Future, New York, Oxford University Press.
2. Agenda 21: Rio Declaration. Statement of Forest Principles.
UN Conference on Environmental Development, 1992, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
3. President's Council on Sustainable Development: Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity,
and a Healthy Environment for the Future. Washington DC:
Feb 1996.
4. Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force: The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies, Volume 1-3. Washington, DC: June 1995, Nov. 1995,
October 1996.
5. Abee, A. 1996. Matrix That Harmonizes Recommendations
and Action Items of the President's Council on Sustainable
Development (Sustainable America: A New Consensus for
Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the
Future. Washington DC: Feb 1996) and the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force (The Ecosystem Approach:
Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies, Volume 1-3.
Washington, DC: June 1995, Nov. 1995, October 1996). File
designation:aabeelsustainability/whole.text. 16pp. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C.
6. Powell, Douglas, J.L. Faulkner, D.R Darr, Z. Zhu, and D.W.
MacCleery. 1993. Forest Resources of the United States. In:
Table 2, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
RM-234 (Revised). Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO, 80526.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
7. Robertson, F. D. 1992. Letter to Regional Foresters and
Research Station Directors. File designation: 1003-1. Subject:
Ecosystem Management of the National Forests and Grasslands. 3pp. USDA Forest Service, Washington DC.
8. Thomas, J.W. 1996. Forest Service Perspective on Ecosystem
Management. Ecological Applications 6(3):703-705.
9. Sexton, W.T. 1998. Ecosystem Management: Expanding the
Resource Management "Tool Kit". Landscape and Urban Planning (Special Issue-Ecosystem Management) 40 (1-3): 103-112.
10. Jensen, M.E. and P.S.Bourgeron (Editors). 1993. Eastside
Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment, Volume II Ecosystem
Management: Principles and Applications. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 397pp.
11. Borman, B.T., RF. Tarrant, J.R Martin, J. Gordon, F.H.
Wagner, J. McIver, G. Wood, G. Reeves, J. Alegria, J. McIlwain,
P.G. Cunningham, J. Verner, M.H. Brooks, N. Christensen,
P. Friesema, K. Klein, J. Berg, J. Furnish, and J. Henshaw.
1999. Adaptive Management: Common Ground Where Managers, Scientists, and Citizens Can Accelerate Learning to
Achieve Ecosystem Sustainability. In: The Interagency Stewardship Workshop: Common Reference for Ecosystem Management. Sexton, W.T., RC. Szaro, N. Johnson, and A. Malk,
editors. Elsevier Press, Oxford. 1500pp. (in press).
12. Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests. 1995. The
working group on criteria and indicators: Australia, Canada,
Chili, China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, New Zealand,
United States. Canadian Forest Service, Quebec, Canada.
13. Dombeck, Michael, 1997. Letter to President, National Association of State Foresters. File code 3000, July 23, 1997, USDA
Forest Service.
14. Dombeck, Michael, 1998. A Gradual Unfolding of a National
Purpose: A Natural Resource Agenda For The 21 st Century,
transcription of a speech given to U.S. Forest Service employees on March 2, 1998.
15. The Keystone Center. The Keystone National Policy Dialog on
Ecosystem Management. Keystone, CO: Oct 1996.
16. GAO. Ecosystem Management: Additional Actions Needed to
Adequately Test A Promising Approach. Washington, DC: US
GAOIRCED-94111,1994.
17. American Forest and Paper Association. Ecosystem Management: "A New Approach to Federal Forest Management and
Planning". Washington, DC: American Forest Products Association, November 1993.
18. Bureau of Land Management. Ecosystem Management in the
BLM: From Concept to Commitment. U.S. Government Printing,1994.
19. Integration Of Criteria And Indicators Of Sustainable Forest
Management In The USDA Forest Service. 1997. USDA Forest
Service Sustainable Development Issue Team. Internal working document, USFS Washington DC.
20. Johnson, Kate, A. Abee, G. Alcock, D. Behler, B. Culhane, K.
Holtje, D. Howlett, G. Martinez, and K. Picarelli. 1999. Management Perspectives on Regional Cooperation. In: The Interagency Stewardship Workshop: Common Reference for Ecosystem Management. Sexton, W.T., RC. Szaro, N. Johnson,
and A. Malk, editors. Elsevier Press, Oxford. 1500pp. (in press).
21. Yaffee, Steven L., Regional Cooperation: A Strategy for Achieving Ecological Stewardship. 1999. Management Perspectives
on Regional Cooperation. In: The Interagency Stewardship
Workshop: Common Reference for Ecosystem Management.
Sexton, W.T., RC. Szaro, N. Johnson, and A. MaIk, editors.
Elsevier Press, Oxford. 1500pp. (in press).
171