Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating Land Management Agency1

advertisement
This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating
Inventory and Monitoring Into the Work of a
Land Management Agency1
Douglas S. Powell 2
Abstract-Inventorying and monitoring the forest ecosystems of
the United States are important missions of the U.S. Forest Service
in order for it to know if it is meeting its management objectives, to
determine the best adjustments to make to management, and to
meet the public's needs for resource information. Despite the agency's
long history and substantial investments in inventorying and monitoring, the Forest Service still faces many challenges and opportunities. New and increasing demands for information by both the
agency and the public; agency culture, organization and procedures;
and the need for perpetual, continuous forest ecosystem inventorying and monitoring contribute to these challenges. This paper
explores these challenges and offers some approaches for dealing
with them. The challenges are organized into eight categories: (1)
information management, (2) indicator development and selection,
(3) inventory and monitoring methods, (4) scale issues, (5) adaptive
management, (6) science, research, and development, (7) organizational constraints, and (8) coordination with others. Each section
contains a description and rationale for the category, a discussion of
the major challenges to integration of inventorying and monitoring
for the Forest Service, and some suggestions for overcoming these
obstacles and barriers. The paper presents a Forest Service perspective. However, since these challenges are not unique to the Forest
Service or to the United States, the paper has the potential for much
broader application.
Inventorying and monitoring the forest ecosystems of the
United States are important missions of the U.s. Forest
Service in order for it to know ifi t is meeting its management
objectives, to determine the best adjustments to make to
management, and to meet the public's needs for resource
information. The agency has a long history and has made
substantial investments in design and implementation of
inventory and monitoring systems. Despite this experience,
the Forest Service faces numerous challenges and opportunities. These are attributable to a variety of causes, such as
new and increasing demands for information or agency
organization and procedures. Others are perpetual features
of inventory and monitoring forest ecosystems that must be
addressed continually. This paper will explore these challenges and offer some approaches for dealing with them.
While the paper is presented from an agency's perspective,
it has broader application in that these challenges are not
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.
2 Douglas S. Powell is National Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator,
USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Telephone: (202) 205-1724. Email:
dpoweillwo@fs.fed.us
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
unique to the Forest Service or to the United States. Other
agencies, organizations, and countries that conduct inventories and monitoring will recognize similar issues, concerns,
and opportunities.
Information Management _ _ __
Information management is a structured process to bring
quality information in the right form to the right people at
the right time to support sound and deliberate decisions, and
to generate ideas (USDA Forest Service 1992). It encompasses practically every aspect of inventory and monitoring,
including planning, data collection, compilation, analysis,
interpretation, storing, reporting, display, accessing, and
archiving. Most of the people engaged in inventory and
monitoring are resource specialists with little formal training or expertise in information management. This has exacerbated the situation. But there is reason for optimism due
to the blossoming field of information management, increased agency emphasis and support, and continual improvements in computer systems.
The Forest Service's information environment consists of
hundreds of databases, applications, and standards that,
because of their functional development, are not well linked.
This results in redundant data; inconsistent, incompatible
information; duplication with high retrieval and analysis
costs; systems that are unable to share data electronically;
and "islands" of information in unconnected databases and
systems (USDA Forest Service 1992).
Other more specific challenges include:
• A workforce that can meet information management
needs, such as people with relational database and
metadata skills;
• More demand for raw data without knowing how to use
it properly;
• Use of ecoregions instead of political boundaries-and
there are many systems to choose from;
• Demand for different data (greater ecological focus) on a
more frequent basis (annual vs. every ten years);
• Overwhelming volume of data, especially for large areas;
• Great emphasis on data collection often with comparatively little attention paid to other aspects ofinformation
management;
• Poor documentation;
• Too little attention to quality assurance and control; and
• The design of database management and information
systems so that data quality is assured, efficiency is
optimized, and data are protected.
505
In 1992 the Forest Service mounted an agency-wide effort
to address these challenges consistently. The resulting framework document (USDA Forest Service 1992) outlined a
vision for the future where:
• People who develop and manage information are stewards, not owners;
• Data are captured at their source as a natural course of
conducting Forest Service business;
• Data are entered once and used often;
• A shared data environment consists of integratable
databases coordinated through modern data management technology;
• Widely used, commonly understood, and persistent data,
information, and processes are standardized; and
• Data are shared with external cooperators and the
public.
• Since then the agency has moved closer to this vision by:
• Developing a consistent core of data elements and quality assurance protocols for the national Forest Inventory
and Analysis program;
• Developing a Forest Health Monitoring program information management system that assures high quality
data, maintains records of all changes to the data, and
assures timely and user-friendly access to data;
• Developing corporate databases and applications for
vegetation, soils, geology, climate, air, and water resources;
• Documenting monitoring results and evaluation findings and improving accessibility;
• Making inventory data available via Internet (such as at
this website: www.srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/scripts/
ew.htm); and
• Developing appropriate interagency metada ta standards
so that data collected by one group of scientists may be
utilized by other scientists and organizations effectively
and appropriately.
Indicator Development and
Selection
Indicators can be defined in a number ofways , but they are
basically quantitative or qualitative variables that can be
measured or described and, when observed periodically,
demonstrate trends (Santiago Declaration. 1995). They form
the basic information building blocks for inventory and
moni toring. There are two basic challenges: (1) the proliferation of indicators in use can make sharing of information
difficult, and (2) there is often little logic to support selection
of indicators.
The multiplicity ofindicators is due not only to the highly
complex ecosystems that we are attempting to inventory and
monitor but also to the different objectives and purposes of
the myriad inventory and monitoring systems in existence.
The solution is to standardize indicators or variables where
it is appropriate to do so. The creation of corporate databases
mentioned above is one attempt to introduce standardization into a very decentralized organization. Another major
effort to report common indicators is occurring at the international level-the criteria and indicators for sustainable
forest management (C&I). It is widely recognized that for
506
countries to assess their progress in sustainably managing
their forests, indicators need to be monitored over time.
There are several indicator development processes underway. One for temperate and boreal forests known as the
Santiago Declaration (1995) involves 10 countries including
Canada, United States, and Mexico. It has identified 67
different indicators that these countries have agreed they
will use in common to assess sustainability. The Forest
Service is actively engaged in implementing the Santiago
Declaration for the United States.
Several efforts have recognized the need to provide clear
exposition of the logic and rationale that underlie the selection of the environmental attributes (indicators) to be measured. The Northwest Forest Plan monitoring work in Washington, Oregon, and California emphasizes identifying
candidate indicators that reflect underlying ecological processes and changes in stressor levels, represent the larger
resource of which they are a structural or compositional
component, and are measurable (Noon 1997). The list can be
further refined by using indicators with these properties:
• Their dynamics parallel those of the larger environmental component or system of ultimate interest;
• They each show a short-term but persistent response to
change in the status of the environment;
• They can be accurately and precisely estimated (that is,
have a high signal-to-noise ratio);
• The likelihood of detecting a change in their magnitude
is high, given a change in the status of the system being
monitored;
• Each demonstrates low natural variability, or additive
variation, and changes in their values can readily be
distinguished from background variation; and
• The costs of measurement are not prohibitive.
The Forest Health Monitoring program of the Forest
Service, which began in 1989, has been gradually adding
indicators as funding and personnel resources have allowed.
Their indicator development process includes these steps:
1. Identify relevant environmental or societal values of
concern,
2. Formulate key questions relating to those values,
3. Review the scientific literature and available databases,
4. Note gaps in their conceptual model and select new
candidate indicators,
5. Test indicators in pilot and demonstration studies,
6. Formulate plot-level indices, and
7. Review indicators by partners (participating agencies
and organizations), external scientists, and interested
individuals.
Inventory and Monitoring
Methods _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Once indicators have been selected, the next step in
inventory and monitoring is to find the most efficient and
cost-effective method of obtaining the necessary measurements or estimates. Techniques development in this area
has generally been conducted by biometrics research and
development experts or by technologists specializing in
inventory and monitoring.
USDA Forest Service ProceedinQs RMRS-P-12. 1999
Anyone conducting research in inventory and monitoring
methods can list a variety of challenges worthy of attention.
Rather than try to list these definitively, I'll mention two
that seem particularly important from my perspective. One
is the integration of remote sensing (spatial) and samplebased inventories. This has been recognized nationally as a
critical need in a Federal-wide effort to integrate inventory,
monitoring, and research (Environmental Monitoring Team
1997). The Forest Service has inventories that are spatial
and that are designed to meet managers needs at a fine scale.
We also have strategic inventories that are sample-based for
large areas, such as states and regions. There are discussions and research underway to bring these two types of
inventories together to capitalize on the advantages of each.
The Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute is
working closely with the Northern Region (Montana and
northern Idaho) to see how the spatial needs of national
forests may be met at various scales by the strategic, samplebased Forest Inventory and Analysis inventories (personal
communication, Thomas Hoekstra). Moisen and others (1998)
are exploring various statistical methods for merging forest
inventory data with satellite-based information to improve
the efficiency of estimates of forest population totals, to
produce regional maps of forest class and structure, and to
explore ecological relationships.
The other type of challenge relates to technical issues of
remote sensing. As the technology rapidly evolves, a host of
needs arise, such as coordinated acquisition of data from
multiple sensors; highly automated data acquisition,
archiving, retrieval, preprocessing, and distribution; global
DEM (digital elevation models), especially for microwave
data; robust mosaicing methods; highly automated yet interactive image classification; and validation procedures
(personal communication, Frank Ahern). Solutions for these
needs are being developed and tested in agencies, universities, and elsewhere in the private sector, but this will be a
continual effort because the challenge is so dynamic.
Scale Issues _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
In any discussion of inventory and monitoring, the first
thing that must be commonly understood by participants is
the scale of the activity. Inventory and monitoring occur at
spatial scales from global to forest stand and at temporal
scales from centuries to days. Not only do costs vary as scale
changes, but so too does the utility of the information to
answer certain questions. Several challenges confront us.
We need to identify the loss or gain of information as one
changes scale as well as the temporal and spatial resolution
necessary to identify patterns and change. Methods for
extrapolation from fine to broad spatial scales and from
short- to long-term temporal scales need to be developed.
And in some instances, strategies must be flexible to meet
local needs while attentive to requirements at higher levels.
To resolve scale issues, the best starting point is to identify
the scale that is appropriate to the level of analysis. We must
match the spatial and temporal monitoring scale to the
question being asked or the issue being addressed. For
example, the Forest Inventory and Analysis program is
developing annual monitoring and evaluation approaches so
that it can meet the needs of customers in areas where land
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
use and timber volume changes are occurring rapidly. Ecosystem management demands resource informa tion for broad
areas, and this has resulted in the Forest Service and its
partners conducting large-area assessments to gain understanding of forest ecosystems at that scale. Inventory and
monitoring data and information are vital inputs to these
assessments.
Adaptive Management And
Decision Making
Adaptive management is a continuing process of actionbased planning, monitoring, researching, and adjusting
with the objective of improving implementation and achieving desired goals and objectives (Lessard 1998). Monitoring
and evaluation are key aspects of adaptive management to
provide the feedback to decision-makers or land managers to
make necessary adjustments or improvements.
A major challenge is that there is currently little connection between monitoring and evaluation and decision making. Tied to this, we rarely identify "trigger points" in our
monitoring systems, that is thresholds or limits for indicators that when they are reached they trigger a management
response or decision. Monitoring and evaluation requirements often are not based on clear objectives and do not
address key management questions or issues. Monitoring
for monitoring's sake is unacceptable. We must evaluate the
results and put them to use in adaptive management.
We find ourselves with a general inability to answer key
questions about forests, such as:
• Are we managing our forests sustainably?
• How much and at what rate is deforestation or conversion occurring?
• How much of each forest ecoregion is protected and how
representative are protected areas?
• Where is forest restoration most needed and achievable?
and
• How can terrestrial and aquatic conservation goals be
integrated?
Inventory and monitoring, in an adaptive management
framework, can not only answer these questions but can also
be used to correct undesirable situations that have been
detected.
To practice adaptive management requires a commitment
by land management agencies. It may call for a change in
agency culture such that management objectives are couched
as experiments and that failure is acceptable. As a result, it
also requires the support and approval of Congress and our
partners as well as a comprehensive educational program
for the public. But even without a full commitment to
manage adaptively, we can take steps that will improve our
inventory and monitoring systems. Examples include:
• Monitoring needs to be designed to help managers understand the dynamics of forests and the underlying
causes so that when decisions are made, they will have
the desired effect to move the system toward the desired
condition;
• Provide a clear statement of why the monitoring program has value (such as how it ties to management goals
and objectives), what information it will provide, and
507
how the interpretation of that information will lead to a
more responsible management response or tie to decision processes;
• Realize that there are many types of monitoring (e.g.,
baseline, compliance, effectiveness, and validation) so
tailor monitoring designs appropriately;
• Statistical precision must match manager's needs; i.e.,
sampling must address detecting a given magnitude of
change and the likelihood of detecting this change should
it occur;
• Apply the appropriate design and quality standards to
meet the monitoring objective, e.g., scientific rigor is not
always needed;
• Determine threshold indicator values that will trigger a
management response; and
• Use research natural areas, which are protected from
harvesting, as reference monitoring sites to facilitate
understanding of the effects that such management has
on forests versus natural dynamics.
Science, Research and
Development, Theory
Ifinventory and monitoring are going to be truly effective
in describing forest resource conditions and in improving
land management decisions, then they should be based on
the best science and research available. There is widespread
agreement that science and research playa vital role in
integrating monitoring information (Environmental Monitoring Team 1997). Monitoring ecosystems to draw reliable
inferences about system integrity before irreversible degradation occurs is daunting, given that these ecosystems are
poorly understood, complex systems subject to stochastic
variation and unpredictable behaviors. This calls for close
involvement by research in the monitoring process.
The challenges are worthy of any research organization.
This list of "gnarly" problems in monitoring ecological resources, such as forests, provides a flavor of the daunting
task before us (personal communication, Barry Noon):
• Predicting across temporal and spatial scales;
• Estimating "normal" rates of change of ecosystem processes;
• Defining the expected ''range of variation" in natural
processes;
• Identifying threshold regions of change that trigger
management responses;
• Defining a "desired future condition" for dynamic systems;
• Detecting causation when there are time lags and synergistic effects;
• Linking physical and biological process in the form of
predictive models; and
• Drawing inferences to the population of interest from
non-probability based samples.
Other challenges include:
• Appropriate scientific methods frequently are not used
in conducting monitoring and evaluation;
• Minimal foundation in ecological theory or knowledge;
508
• Monitoring single specIes or simple systems is more
straightforward and easier than assessing integrity of
entire ecosystems, which may be the real need; and
• How to best integrate the human, biological, and physical dimensions of forests into-inventory and monitoring
systems.
The first step in integrating science with inventory and
monitoring is conceptually simple but often difficult in
practice: get scientists and land managers to work together
for the common good. Each group provides essential pieces
of this puzzle and for either one to attempt to solve it
independently is doomed to failure. Researchers, scientists,
and land managers need to bring their different perspectives, training, and experiences together to collaborate in
the various aspects of inventory and monitoring. One pDsitive step the FDrest Service has taken is to. create a mDnitDring and evaluatiDn cDDrdinatDr pDsitiDn that is funded equally
by the research and natiDnal fDrest system branches of the
agency. Since much Dfthe inventDry and monitDring the Dry
is already well develDped, anDther useful step is to. synthesize and interpret the the Dry fDr land managers and perSDnnel who. are tasked to. develDp inventDry and mDnitoring
systems. If the resulting systems are sDlidly grDunded in
sDund theory they will be much mDre efficient and useful in
the shDrt- and IDng-term.
Here are a cDuple Df Dther suggestions. Inventory and
mDnitDring designers can establish the relation (pathway)
between thDse factDrs that may cDmprDmise the management gDals (stressDrs) and their eCDlogical effects. This is
anDther way Df saying that they shDuld develop a cDnceptual
mDdel Df hDW fDrests wDrk. Designers can also. provide a
mechanism fDr adDpting, adapting, Dr developing new technDIDgy Dr applicatiDns (e.g., remDte sensing, sampling equi pment, cDmputer models and infDrmatiDn systems) to maintain a state-Df-the-art mDnitDring system.
Organizational/Institutional
Constraints
Even if an agency can DverCDme all the previDusly described challenges to. integrating inventDry and mDnitDring,
success will not be achieved unless and until organizational
and institutiDnal cDnstraints are satisfactDrily dealt with.
The human reSDurces that make up an agency fDrm the vital
cDnnectiDn between a well designed monitDring system and
a mDnitDring system that is actually implemented and
achieving the desired DutcDmes. This is nDt an area Df
scientific Dr technical sDlutiDns but rather an area Dfadministrative and persDnnel management sDlutiDns.
The FDrest Service faces numerDUS institutiDnal challenges thDugh many of these are CDmmDn to. Dther agencies
as well. MonitDring and evaluatiDn techniques, methDdolDgies, and philDsDphies vary widely resulting in incDnsistent
findings and repDrting methDds that affect Dur credibility.
Our decentralized DrganizatiDnal structure has encDuraged
and exacerbated this situatiDn. There is a lack ofintegration
and interdisciplinary apprDach in mDnitDring and evaluatiDn activities resulting in duplicatiDn Df effDrts and redundant Dr incDnsistent data. FunctiDnal staffs do not promote
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
integration among disciplines. Land managers and researchers, who must work cooperatively, often do not understand
each other's needs and approaches, which breeds mistrust.
There is no incentive for doing monitoring and evaluation
and little or no perceived risk for not doing it. Line officers
and staff differ in their understanding of what monitoring is,
how it works, what its value and benefits are, and how to
implement it. Legal challenges to agency monitoring are
mounting. There is also a reluctance to cooperate and share,
i.e., public data and information are often considered as
proprietary. Inventory and monitoring can be very expensive and yet financial resources have been steadily decreasing for these activities.
The Forest Service is working on solutions to these challenges on several fronts. We recently created the Inventory
and Monitoring Institute to facilitate and support the collection, management, and analysis of compatible, scientifically
reliable social and ecological information at the national,
regional, state, and national forest levels to support ecosystem management. A strategic plan or framework is under
development that will describe all of the various inventory
and monitoring efforts and their relationships as well identify critical gaps and duplications of efforts. The Forest
Inventory and Analysis program is working closely with the
National Forest System inventories in order to fulfill its
mandate of reporting on forest lands of all ownerships. A
National Resource Information System (NRIS) is being
developed and implemented across the agency to standardize and integrate inventories conducted at the forest and
district level. Since line officers playa critical role to implement inventory and monitoring, the agency is emphasizing
the benefits of monitoring and institutionalizing accountability to encourage them to be more powerful and committed advocates. But all levels of the organization must be
involved, so we are pursuing a combination of "top-down"
and "bottom-up" approaches. We are encouraging the use of
interdisciplinary teams in designing monitoring systems so
that these systems are integrated and cost-effective. Monitoring takes commitment of human and financial resources,
more often than not in short supply as government continues
to follow the corporate model of downsizing. These resources
need to be explicitly obligated at the initiation of projects
rather than added on at the end as an afterthought. Guidance has been issued to develop realistic and practical
inventory and monitoring goals so that we can avoid commi tting to do work that we are unlikely to be able to do.
Coordination, Partnerships,
Volunteers
Finally, the Forest Service, despite its talented workforce,
realizes that trying to integrate inventory and monitoring in
isolation from other agencies, organizations, stakeholders,
and publics is not only inefficient but often counter productive. Our agency does not have a monopoly on forest resource
issues, ideas, and approaches, and so our inventory and
monitoring systems must be integrated with similar systems used elsewhere.
Challenges for inventory and monitoring collaboration
are varied. A major one is simply lack of information on
what inventory and monitoring work is being conducted
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
elsewhere that may be useful and helpful. Once such
information is obtained, another major challenge is how to
adapt and/or adopt different yet related inventory and
monitoring systems with ones already in use. Another one
is the not uncommon view that if someone else is doing
inventory and monitoring it cannot be applicable to my
situation. This is known as the "not invented here" syndrome, and it is a real barrier to working cooperatively.
Part ofthis concern, however, arises from the lack of control
over the quality and timeliness of the data, and thus can be
valid. Volunteers or other assistants may not have adequate training to conduct inventories and monitoring.
Working with others can slow inventory and monitoring
progress and thus be an impediment to timely release of
resource data and information. So while coordination,
cooperation, and collaboration sound worthy, they are not
easily implemented.
The Forest Service is actively engaged in a variety of
efforts to work with others in the inventory and monitoring
of forest ecosystems. Guidance and direction have been
issued for specialists not to design a system in isolation, i.e.,
find out what others are doing and adapt as appropriate.
Also, before collecting your own data, search for comparable
data from other sources. We are working to involve partners
(including the public) in all phases of system design and
implementation. The Black Hills National Forest in South
Dakota, for instance, has invited the public to see its monitoring work in action and to participate in it themselves. The
Forest Service participated in the framework to integrate
environmental monitoring and research (Environmental
Monitoring Team 1997) and is active in collaboratively
designing and conducting the necessary inven tory and monitoring for the national report card on the health of forest
ecosystems. The Forest Inventory and Analysis and Forest
Health Monitoring programs work very closely with State
Foresters and their respective agencies, especially in the
area of intensifying the sample to improve the resolution of
the data and estimates. The agency also organized a
roundtable discussion with many other partner agencies
and organizations on approaches to use criteria and indicators to monitor progress toward sustainable forest management. We have worked with other agencies and organizations in Washington, DC to create a forest and grassland
inventory and monitoring forum where interested parties
meet regularly to share information and approaches to
common problems. This forum resulted in a website
(www.mp1-pwrc.usgs.gov/fgim/index.htm) that permits anyone in the world to link with a host of inventory and
monitoring activities and information. And finally, through
meetings like this symposium, we are striving to reach
across international boundaries to work with our counterparts in other countries to develop forest inventory and
monitoring systems that are compatible and integrated and
that will yield information efficiently at the continental and
global scale.
Conclusions __________
The challenges of properly integrating inventory and
monitoring into the work of a land management agency
are myriad and complex. They touch on topics such as
509
information management, indicator selection and development, methods, scale, adaptive management, decision making, science, research and development, organizational constraints, and coordination with others. In the face of such
obstacles and barriers, it would be tempting to despair. But
we understand the critical importance of inventory and
monitoring information to sound forest management, and so
we have been addressing and confronting these challenges
on a wide front for a number of years. We are making
progress both internally andin cooperation with many other
agencies and organizations. Momentum is building to focus
more attention and resources on inventory and monitoring
issues, and this can only accelerate transforming these
challenges into opportunities that we can take advantage of.
The "information age" demands the natural resource management agencies to provide complete information about the
resources under their responsibility in a manner that can be
easily accessed through modern delivery mechanisms. The
Forest Service is positioning itself, in partnership with
others, to be a major provider of high quality, timely, and
useful forest ecosystem information. It is well worth the
effort to do so.
510
Literature Cited
Environmental Monitoring Team. 1997. Integrating the nation's
environmental monitoring and research networks and programs:
a proposed framework. Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources, National Science and Technology Council. Washington, DC. 102 p.
Lessard, Gene. 1998. An adaptive approach .to planning and decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning 40: 81-87.
Moisen, G. G., Edwards, T. C., Jr., and Van Hooser, D. 1998.
Merging regional forest inventory data with satellite-based information through nonlinear regression methods. In: Ranchin,
Thierry and Wald, Lucien, eds., proceedings ofthe Second International Conference on the Fusion ofEarth Data, Sophia Antipolis,
France, January 1998. p. 123-128.
Noon, Barry R. 1997. Scientific framework for effectiveness monitoringofthe Northwest Forest Plan. In: Mulder, Barry S., Noon,
Barry R., Spies, Thomas A., Raphael, Martin G., Olsen, Anthony
R., Palmer, Craig J., Reeves, Gordon H., and Hart, Hartwell H.,
The Strategy and Design of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Final Report. Regional
Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR. p. 40-56.
Santiago Declaration. 1995. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal
forests. J. Forestry 93(4): 18-21.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Information management: a framework for the future. Washington, DC. 17 p.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Download